Does UCC implementation by individual states undermine or advance the constitutional vision under Article 44? Critically examine with reference to Uttarakhand and West Bengal.

Article 44 directs the State to "endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India", but as a Directive Principle it is non-justiciable under Article 37 [1]. With Uttarakhand's UCC in force since January 2025 [2] and West Bengal's Draft UCC Bill, 2026 referred to a nine-member committee under Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai [3], states — not Parliament — are now driving Article 44. This advances its substance, but strains its promise of uniformity.

How state initiatives advance the vision

• Constitutional competence: personal law (marriage, divorce, succession) falls in Concurrent List Entry 5 [1], so state codes are legitimate exercises, not encroachments.
• Ending policy paralysis: after decades of Union inaction, Uttarakhand codified marriage, divorce, succession and live-in relationships uniformly across religions [2].
• Gender justice: uniform succession and divorce rules address discrimination that survives within personal laws [4].
• Deliberative model: expert committees before tabling — Uttarakhand's drafting panel and West Bengal's review committee, both Desai-headed [2][3] — build consensus rather than impose.
• Depolarising the debate: a TMC-governed state acting alongside a BJP-governed one broadens ownership of Article 44 beyond one political camp [3].

How they undermine it

• Uniformity fragmented: differing scope defeats the "throughout the territory of India" mandate — West Bengal's draft omits adoption and maintenance, which Uttarakhand covers [2][3].
• Forum shopping and conflict of laws across state boundaries in inter-state marriages and succession.
• Exemptions dilute the principle: Uttarakhand exempts Scheduled Tribes [2], conceding that uniformity yields to identity.
• Article 25 friction: religious freedom challenges are likelier against piecemeal codes lacking national consultation; the 21st Law Commission held a UCC "neither necessary nor desirable at this stage" [4].

State experiments are therefore a useful laboratory, not a substitute for the constitutional goal. The way forward is incremental, consultative codification — harmonising state codes through a Law Commission-led national framework, so that Article 44 is realised without diluting Articles 25–26.