The uniform civil code

Detail

What Article 44 says

• Text of Art. 44: "The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India."
• Uniform civil code (UCC): one common set of laws for all citizens on marriage, divorce, inheritance and adoption, whatever their religion.
• Personal law: the family rules each religious community follows today. Examples are Hindu law, Muslim personal law (Shariat), Christian law and Parsi law.
• It sits in Part IV. It is a Directive Principle of State Policy (DPSP). A DPSP is a goal the government should work towards, but no court can enforce it (non-justiciable, Art. 37).
• The wording is soft. "Shall endeavour" means "shall try". The Constitution sets no deadline.
• NCERT: Class 11 lists the UCC among the policies in the Directive Principles. Class 7's infographic on the Constitution shows Art. 44.
• Origin: Art. 44 was Draft Article 35 of the Draft Constitution of 1948 [5].

Constituent Assembly debate

• In the Fundamental Rights sub-committee: Minoo Masani, Hansa Mehta and Rajkumari Amrit Kaur wanted the UCC to be a justiciable right (one that courts can enforce). They lost, so the UCC went into the Directive Principles.
• On the floor of the Assembly, 23 November 1948:
• Opposed: Mohammad Ismail, Naziruddin Ahmad and B. Pocker Sahib. They moved amendments to keep personal law outside Art. 44.
• Their arguments [5]:
  • a UCC would violate freedom of religion;
  • it would cause unrest within the Muslim community;
  • personal law should not be changed without the consent of the community concerned.
• Defended: K.M. Munshi, Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and B.R. Ambedkar. In their view, a UCC would support the unity of the nation and the secular character of the Constitution, and women's rights could not be secured without it [5].

• Ambedkar's middle path: the State need not act at once. A future code could at first apply only to those who chose it (a voluntary code).

• Result: the Assembly adopted Draft Art. 35 the same day, with no amendment [5].

• Narasu Appa Mali (Bombay HC, 1952):
• Art. 13 strikes down any "law in force" that breaks a Fundamental Right.
• The Court held that uncodified personal laws are not "law in force" under Art. 13.
• So these personal laws could not be tested against the Fundamental Rights. This left them largely beyond judicial review for decades.

Partial steps towards a common law

1. Hindu Code Bill

• Hindu Code Bill: a plan to codify and reform Hindu personal law in one statute. It also covered Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs.
• It stalled in Parliament. Ambedkar resigned as Law Minister in 1951.
• Parliament later passed it in four parts:

Act	Year	Main change
Hindu Marriage Act	1955	Monogamy (one spouse at a time); divorce allowed
Hindu Succession Act	1956	Inheritance rights for women
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act	1956	Rules on guardians of children
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act	1956	Rules on adoption and maintenance

• Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005: made daughters coparceners, meaning equal joint heirs to ancestral family property by birth, like sons.
• Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020): a daughter has this right even if her father died before 2005.

2. Special Marriage Act 1954

• Special Marriage Act 1954: allows a civil marriage (a marriage under state law, not religious rites) between any two people of any religion, with no need to convert.
• The 30-day public notice: the couple's intended marriage is put up on a public notice for 30 days, and objections may be raised. It is criticised because it exposes inter-faith couples to family pressure and harassment (a privacy concern).
• The 21st Law Commission (2018) also examined this 30-day period [4].
• Supriyo v. Union of India (2023): the same-sex marriage case. Petitioners asked the Court to read the Act as covering same-sex couples. The Court refused and left the matter to Parliament.

3. Goa Civil Code

• Goa Civil Code: a Portuguese Civil Code of 1867, kept in force after Goa's liberation in 1961.
• It gives largely common rules to all communities:
• compulsory registration of marriages;
• community of property: husband and wife jointly own the assets they hold during the marriage;

• common rules on succession (inheritance).

• It has exceptions. It is not perfectly uniform.

• Jose Paulo Coutinho v. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira (2019): the Supreme Court called Goa a "shining example" of a uniform civil code in action.

Judicial prompts and legislative replies

Shah Bano case (Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985)

• Facts: a divorced Muslim woman asked her ex-husband for maintenance.
• Held: she could claim maintenance under s.125 CrPC. This is a secular provision that applies to everyone, whatever their religion. It is now s.144 BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023).
• The Court regretted that Art. 44 had remained a "dead letter".
• Parliament's reply was the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986:
• it limited the ex-husband's duty to pay maintenance to the iddat period (about three months after divorce);

• it was widely seen as undoing the Shah Bano judgment.

• Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001): upheld the 1986 Act but read it to require a "reasonable and fair provision" for the woman's whole life, made within the iddat period.

• Mohd Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana (July 2024): held that a divorced Muslim woman can still use s.125 CrPC. The 1986 Act does not take away this secular remedy.

Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995)

• Facts: Hindu husbands converted to Islam to marry a second time without divorcing their first wives.
• Held:
• the first marriage stays valid under the Hindu Marriage Act;
• so the second marriage is void;

• the husband can be prosecuted for bigamy (having two spouses at once) under the Indian Penal Code.

• The Court urged the government to frame a UCC.

• Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000): clarified that the Court cannot order Parliament to enact a UCC. It cannot issue a writ of mandamus (a court order directing a public authority to do its duty) to make law. Art. 44 is a DPSP.

John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003)

• The Court struck down s.118 of the Indian Succession Act 1925, which limited Christians' gifts to charity in their wills.
• The Court repeated its call for a UCC.

Shayara Bano v. Union of India (22 August 2017)

• Talaq-e-biddat: instant triple talaq. The husband ends the marriage at once by saying "talaq" three times in one sitting.
• Held, by 3:2: instant triple talaq was struck down.
• Parliament's reply was the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019:
• instant triple talaq is void (it has no legal effect);
• it is a cognisable offence, meaning the police can arrest without a warrant;
• it is punishable with up to 3 years in jail and a fine;
• the wife is entitled to a subsistence allowance (money for daily needs) and custody of minor children.

The Law Commission's view

21st Law Commission (2018)

• It issued a consultation paper, "Reform of Family Law", on 31 August 2018 [4].
• It held that a UCC is "neither necessary nor desirable at this stage".
• It preferred reforming each personal law to remove discrimination.
• Reforms it suggested [4]:
• no-fault divorce, with matching changes to alimony and maintenance;
• removing the unequal age of consent for marriage;
• compulsory registration of marriage;
• a review of the 30-day notice under the Special Marriage Act;
• stopping bigamy through conversion;
• in Hindu law: questions on restitution of conjugal rights, community of property for married couples, abolishing coparcenary, and the rights of children born outside marriage;
• in Muslim law: codifying inheritance in a gender-just way;
• in Parsi law: protecting a married woman's right to inherit even if she marries outside the community;
• in custody cases: the "best interest of the child" must come first, whatever the personal law.

22nd Law Commission (2023)

• More than three years had passed since the 2018 paper. So the 22nd Law Commission decided to study the subject afresh [3].
• It asked the public and recognised religious organisations for their views [3].
• The window was open from 14 June 2023 to 28 July 2023, after an extension [2].
• (Outcome — verify current.)

State-level moves

Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code Act 2024

• Uttarakhand Act No. 3 of 2024. It was passed by the state assembly and received the President's assent on 11 March 2024 [6].
• Family law is a Concurrent List subject (List III, entry 5), so both Parliament and the states can make laws on it.

• Under Art. 254(2), a state law that conflicts with a central law on a Concurrent subject prevails in that state only if the President assents.

• Drafted by: a committee headed by Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.

• In force from: 27 January 2025.
• Status: the first state UCC after independence. Goa's code is older but was inherited from Portuguese rule.
• What it covers:
• marriage, divorce and succession;
• compulsory registration of marriages contracted after the Code began [6];

• compulsory registration of live-in relationships.

• What it bans: polygamy (more than one spouse) and practices such as halala.

• Who is exempt: Scheduled Tribes. The Act has a separate provision on how it applies to them [6].
• Court challenges are pending in the Uttarakhand High Court (verify current).
• Other states (verify current): Gujarat set up a UCC committee; Assam moved to ban polygamy by law.

The debate

For a UCC	Against a uniform code
Gender justice: ends unequal rules on divorce, maintenance and inheritance	Freedom of religion (Arts. 25-26)
Equality before law (Art. 14) and no discrimination by sex (Art. 15)	Fear of losing minority identity, and the risk of a majority-community code
National integration: one civil law for all citizens	Tribal customary law is protected: Art. 371A (Nagaland), Art. 371G (Mizoram) and the Sixth Schedule (tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram)
Secularism: religion is kept out of civil rights	Diversity: the 21st Law Commission (2018) preferred reform within each personal law [4]

Open questions:

• "Uniform" or "common"? One identical code for all, or common basic rights with some room for variation?
• Optional code? The Special Marriage Act and Ambedkar's opt-in idea are models for this.
• Who can legislate? Family law is in List III, entry 5. States can make their own codes, as Uttarakhand did, but this can produce many different "uniform" codes across India.

Links to other topics: the secularism angle is covered under secularism, and political mobilisation (Shah Bano, 1986) under gender, religion and caste.

Prelims Hooks

• Art. 44 is a DPSP in Part IV, not a Fundamental Right. It was Draft Article 35, debated and adopted on 23 November 1948 without amendment.
• Minoo Masani, Hansa Mehta and Rajkumari Amrit Kaur wanted the UCC to be justiciable. Mohammad Ismail, Naziruddin Ahmad and B. Pocker Sahib opposed it.
• Narasu Appa Mali (Bombay HC, 1952): personal laws are not "law in force" under Art. 13.
• Shah Bano (1985) → MWPRDA 1986 (maintenance only for iddat) → Danial Latifi (2001) (fair provision for life) → Mohd Abdul Samad (2024) (s.125 CrPC is still available).
• Sarla Mudgal (1995): converting to Islam does not allow a second marriage. Lily Thomas (2000): no mandamus to make a UCC.
• Shayara Bano (2017, 3:2) struck down instant triple talaq. The 2019 Act makes it a cognisable offence with up to 3 years in jail.
• Goa Civil Code = Portuguese code of 1867, called a "shining example" in Jose Paulo Coutinho (2019).
• Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005: daughters became coparceners. Vineeta Sharma (2020) confirmed this.
• Uttarakhand UCC Act 2024: Presidential assent on 11 March 2024; in force 27 January 2025; Scheduled Tribes exempt; live-in registration compulsory.
• Trap: the 21st Law Commission (2018) found a UCC "neither necessary nor desirable at this stage". The 22nd Law Commission (June 2023) asked for public views afresh.

Mains Points

• Gender justice vs. religious freedom:
• The courts have closed the worst gaps one case at a time: Shah Bano, Danial Latifi, Shayara Bano and Abdul Samad.
• This shows that Art. 25 freedom is "subject to" public order, morality, health and the other Fundamental Rights.

• So reform can come through Arts. 14-15 without a single code.

• Step-by-step reform vs. one big code:

• The 21st Law Commission (2018) argued for removing discrimination within each personal law first: no-fault divorce, compulsory marriage registration, and gender-just inheritance.

• A one-shot UCC risks being seen as majority-imposed.

• Federalism angle:

• Family law is in the Concurrent List (entry 5), so states such as Uttarakhand can legislate with Presidential assent under Art. 254(2).
• But state-wise codes may divide the law further, against Art. 44's goal of one code "throughout the territory of India".

• Tribal exemptions (Arts. 371A, 371G, Sixth Schedule) show that "uniform" is never absolute.

• Ambedkar's optional route:

• A common, optional civil code, built out from the Special Marriage Act, could win consent over time.
• It would need privacy-friendly procedures, such as removing the 30-day public notice.
• This answers both the unity goal and minority fears.