The Constitutional Pal

The Elusive Utopia of the Uniform Civil Code

This essay critically examines the historical, legal, and socio-political dimensions of the Uniform Civil Code (hereinafter, "UCC") within the Indian constitutional framework. While Article 44 of the Directive Principles of State Policy envisions a common civil code for all citizens, its implementation remains a site of enduring controversy.

A mythical, long-peddled, politicized utopia. A mirage of equality or political tool?

The UCC has long occupied a paradoxical space in India’s constitutional imagination—both a symbol of progressive reform and a lightning rod for political and cultural conflict. Enshrined as a Directive Principle yet persistently deferred in practice, the UCC is less a concrete legal project than a shifting ideal, invoked in the name of national unity, gender justice, or majoritarian assertion—depending on who is speaking. This essay unpacks the complexities behind the UCC’s elusive promise, tracing its contested journey through legal, social, and political landscapes, and questioning whether it remains a blueprint for equality or a mirage obscuring deeper fault lines.

At the heart of the UCC debate lies a fundamental tension: the aspiration for a uniform set of personal laws versus the constitutional commitment to cultural and religious pluralism. While proponents champion it as essential to ensuring gender equality and national integration, critics argue that the push for uniformity often masks a homogenizing impulse, privileging dominant cultural norms under the guise of legal neutrality. The selective urgency with which the UCC is periodically revived—often in the heat of electoral politics—raises important questions about whose interests are truly served by its implementation, and whether the law is being wielded as a tool of reform or rhetoric.

Despite its foundational presence in the Indian Constitution, the UCC remains a distant, often divisive aspiration. Advocates frame it as a necessary instrument for achieving gender equality and social justice, pointing to the discrepancies in personal laws that govern different religious communities. Yet, the UCC’s critics argue that it is neither a panacea for social reform nor a symbol of secularism, but rather a politically charged tool that risks undermining India's pluralistic fabric. In reality, the UCC has become a battleground for competing visions of modernity and tradition, where its elusive nature speaks not to a lack of legal will but to the deep ideological divides that complicate its realization.

The UCC has become less a legal aspiration and more a mirror reflecting India’s deepest ideological schisms—between equality and identity, secularism and majoritarianism, rhetoric and reality.

Backwaters

Constitutional Vision and the Founding Debates

The origins of the UCC in India are rooted in the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly, where the question of a common civil law intersected sharply with concerns about religious freedom, minority rights, and national integration. Article 44 of the Directive Principles of State Policy—stating that "the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India"—was inserted with the hope of modernizing personal laws without immediate enforcement. The language itself reflected compromise: it was aspirational, not enforceable, revealing the framers’ cautious approach to a deeply sensitive subject.

Key figures like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar supported the UCC in principle, viewing it as essential for gender justice and national unity. Ambedkar argued that a secular state should not interfere in religious beliefs but could legitimately regulate social practices—especially those impacting equality and justice. However, this position faced resistance, notably from members like Mohamed Ismail and Naziruddin Ahmad, who saw the UCC as a potential infringement on the cultural autonomy of religious minorities, particularly Muslims.

In a critical exchange, Ambedkar emphasized that individuals would retain the freedom to follow personal laws if they chose, and that a UCC would not be imposed compulsorily. Yet, the opposition's anxiety about majoritarian overreach prevailed, and Article 44 was placed among the non-justiciable directives—left to the discretion of future legislatures.

Equality vs. Religion

The legal debates around the UCC have centered on a triad of constitutional values: equality, secularism, and freedom of religion. On one hand, proponents argue that personal laws—especially those governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption—often violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (equality before law) and 15 (prohibition of discrimination). On the other hand, defenders of personal law systems cite Article 25, which protects the freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.

The judiciary has periodically weighed in on these tensions, most notably in the Shah Bano case (1985), where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Muslim woman seeking maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The judgment invoked the need for a UCC, highlighting the state's failure to secure uniform rights for women across religious lines. The political backlash that followed—including the passage of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986—revealed the deep communal sensitivities attached to the issue, and marked a moment when legal progressivism clashed with identity politics.

More recent rulings, such as Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), which invalidated instant triple talaq, have reignited debates on whether legal reform should proceed incrementally within religious frameworks or via a comprehensive, codified civil code. The judiciary has at times gestured toward the desirability of a UCC, but its interventions have also underscored the Court’s ambivalence—balancing constitutional morality with political prudence.

At its core, the legal discourse around the UCC is less about codification and more about contestation: between community autonomy and individual rights, between pluralism and homogenization, and between a vision of secularism that respects difference versus one that demands uniformity.

Community Reactions

Between Apprehension and Advocacy

Community responses to the idea of a UCC have been far from uniform, shaped by historical experience, minority anxieties, and differing interpretations of reform. For many within the Muslim community, the UCC has been viewed with deep suspicion, perceived not as a neutral legal reform but as an instrument of majoritarian imposition. The memory of colonial-era interventions in personal law, coupled with post-independence instances of selective reform, has only deepened this apprehension. Organizations like the All India Muslim Personal Law Board have consistently resisted UCC proposals, framing them as an assault on religious freedom and cultural identity.

Hindu responses have been more complex. On one hand, Hindu personal laws were subject to sweeping reforms in the 1950s through legislation like the Hindu Marriage Act and the Hindu Succession Act, creating a perception—though contested—that the Hindu community already operates under a form of civil code. However, many Hindu nationalist groups have actively championed the UCC, often framing it as a corrective to “appeasement politics” and a step toward national integration. Critics argue that this framing instrumentalizes the UCC for ideological ends rather than genuine reform.

Christian and Parsi communities have raised their own concerns, often around questions of divorce, inheritance, and the potential dilution of community-specific rights. At the same time, there have been voices within all religious communities—especially among women’s rights activists—who argue for a UCC not as cultural erasure but as a pathway to gender justice and equal citizenship. The internal diversity of views within each community often gets overshadowed by the dominant, usually male, voices speaking in the name of religious tradition.

Social and Political Perspectives

The UCC as a Site of Ideological Contestation

Socially, the UCC represents more than a legal instrument—it is a battleground where identity, modernity, and rights converge. For feminists and human rights advocates, the UCC has long symbolized the unfinished project of secular citizenship, one where individuals, regardless of religion, are entitled to equal treatment under civil law. Yet even within feminist circles, there is disagreement: some support a unified code, while others advocate reform from within personal laws to avoid alienating marginalized communities.

Politically, the UCC has become a polarizing slogan, often invoked more in rhetoric than in legal substance. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has made the UCC a part of its electoral platform, portraying it as a marker of national unity and gender justice. However, its advocacy is often viewed with skepticism due to the party’s broader Hindu nationalist agenda, raising concerns that the UCC may become a vehicle for cultural homogenization rather than egalitarian reform.

Opposition parties have historically approached the UCC with caution, wary of alienating minority voters. This has led to accusations of “vote-bank politics” on one side and “majoritarian coercion” on the other—revealing how deeply entangled the UCC is in India’s communal and electoral calculus.

Recent Legislative Developments

Renewed Push or Political Performance?

In recent years, momentum around the UCC has resurged. Law Commissions have periodically submitted reports—most recently the 22nd Law Commission invited public opinion in 2023—yet none have endorsed immediate implementation. Their findings often stress the need for widespread consensus, gradual reform, and sensitivity to India’s pluralistic society.

Meanwhile, several state governments have taken unilateral steps. Uttarakhand passed a UCC Bill in early 2024—the first Indian state to do so—regulating marriage, divorce, adoption, and inheritance for all residents irrespective of religion (with some exclusions for tribal communities). Other BJP-ruled states like Gujarat and Assam have announced plans to follow suit. While supporters hail these moves as progressive, critics warn of piecemeal federalism undermining national coherence and masking deeper political agendas. Are state-led UCC bills strategic test balloons, softening the ground for a centralized push cloaked in grassroots legitimacy?

At the national level, the central government has made periodic statements about drafting a UCC, but no concrete legislation has been tabled as of yet. Whether this signals strategic delay, calculated appeasement, or genuine deliberation remains uncertain.

Uttarakhand’s UCC Law

A Prototype or a Political Statement?

In February 2024, Uttarakhand became the first Indian state to pass an UCC Act, marking a significant moment in the contemporary discourse around personal law reform. The Uttarakhand UCC Bill, passed in the state assembly with a comfortable majority, covers matters of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption across religious communities. It seeks to standardize civil laws, mandating registration of marriages, equal property rights for sons and daughters, and eliminating practices like polygamy and unilateral divorce.

The law has been projected by the BJP as a model for other states to emulate, yet it is not without contention. Critics point to ambiguities in implementation, especially regarding enforcement mechanisms and potential overlaps with central laws. Importantly, the law exempts Scheduled Tribes, acknowledging their distinct customary practices. This carve-out has prompted questions: if tribal customs deserve protection under Article 371 and the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, why not similar protections for religious minorities?

The selective application of the law has further fueled debates about its underlying intent—whether it represents a genuine move toward legal uniformity or a symbolic assertion of majoritarian governance under the guise of reform.

Feminist Lens

Between Universal Rights and Cultural Sensitivities

Feminist engagement with the UCC has been long-standing, nuanced, and often conflicted. On one hand, the current system of personal laws across religions has institutionalized gender inequality—whether in the form of unequal inheritance, restrictions on divorce, or patriarchal guardianship norms. From this vantage point, a UCC offers the possibility of gender-neutral, secular civil rights for all citizens, unmediated by religious identity.

Yet many feminists have also cautioned against instrumentalizing women's rights to justify state overreach or to disguise majoritarian impulses. The fear is that reforms in the name of gender justice may, in practice, marginalize minority voices, particularly Muslim women, who often find themselves caught between patriarchal religious leadership and a coercive state.

An alternative approach advocated by many feminist scholars is "reform from within"—working to democratize religious personal laws through community-led efforts. Groups like the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan have fought for internal reforms such as banning triple talaq and promoting codified Muslim family law, showing that meaningful change is possible without erasing cultural identity.

Tribal and Northeastern Exceptions

Autonomy or Exclusion?

India’s tribal communities and Northeastern states present a fundamental challenge to any uniform civil code. Protected under constitutional provisions like the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, many of these groups follow customary laws that govern family, property, and succession in ways that are deeply rooted in indigenous traditions.

States like Nagaland, Mizoram, and Meghalaya have already voiced strong opposition to any national UCC, arguing that it would infringe upon their constitutional rights and cultural autonomy. These concerns are not merely symbolic: in many of these societies, clan-based inheritance, oral traditions, and matrilineal customs structure civil life in ways that cannot be easily codified or homogenized.

The central government’s assurances that tribal customs will be respected have done little to allay fears, especially since the definition of "tribal" or "customary" remains uneven across regions. If the UCC continues to exclude these communities, its claim to universality is compromised. If it seeks to include them, it risks igniting fresh conflicts around autonomy and consent.

Comparative Lens

Lessons from Other Plural Societies

Globally, very few pluralistic democracies have adopted a fully uniform civil code. Countries like France and Turkey implemented secular civil codes, often as part of broader nation-building projects, but did so under radically different historical and social contexts—often through authoritarian imposition rather than democratic consensus.

In contrast, countries like Israel and Lebanon retain religion-based personal laws, with the state functioning as an arbiter between religious communities. This has often led to legal fragmentation, gender inequality, and limited recourse for individuals seeking to exit religious systems.

Closer to India’s federal model, South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution offers a compelling parallel: while it enshrines customary law, it also subordinates all law to the principles of equality and dignity, allowing courts to intervene when traditional practices violate constitutional rights. This model balances legal pluralism with constitutional supremacy, offering an example of how personal law reform can be pursued without flattening cultural diversity.

What's Next?

The Mirage or the Mirror?

The UCC continues to hover between constitutional idealism and political opportunism, championed as a tool for modernity but mired in the contradictions of India’s plural society. Its history reveals that it was never envisioned as an immediate mandate, but as an evolving commitment to equality through democratic means. Its legal debates expose the fault lines between individual rights and collective identities, and its contemporary mobilization often mirrors deeper anxieties about nationalism, secularism, and the limits of state power.

Rather than imposing uniformity, the future of personal law reform in India may lie in context-sensitive pluralism—a framework that affirms universal rights without erasing cultural specificities. The challenge is not merely legal but moral: can India craft a civil code that is uniform in justice, if not in form? Or will the UCC remain what it has long been—an elusive utopia, reflecting more about who we are than what we ought to be? The question is no longer whether we need a UCC—but what kind, and who gets to write it. Legal revolutions don’t begin in courtrooms—they begin in conversations when abstract constitutionalism is shifted to kitchen-table realities.

Bibliography

  1. Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume VII, November 1948.
  2. Austin, Granville. The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a Nation. Oxford University Press, 1966.
  3. Baxi, Upendra. 2006. ‘Siting Secularism in the Uniform Civil Code,’ in The Crisis of Secularism in India (Rajeswari Sunder Rajan and Anuradha Needham (eds). Durham, N.C. Duke University Press.
  4. FAMILY LAW - VOLUME I: FAMILY LAWS & CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS AND VOLUME II: MARRIAGE, DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL LITIGATION by FLAVIA AGNES, OXFORD University Press, New Delhi, 2011, PB
  5. Shah Bano Begum v. Mohd. Ahmed Khan, 1985 SCR (3) 844.
  6. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
  7. Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
  8. Law Commission of India Consultation Paper on Reform of Family Law, 31 August 2018 | Law Commission of India 14th June, 2023, Public Notice seeking views on UCC
  9. Government of Uttarakhand, Uniform Civil Code Act & Rules, 2024.
  10. Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan. Seeking Justice Within Family: A National Study on Muslim Women's Views on Reforms in Muslim Personal Law, 2015.
  11. H.M. Seervai’s Constitutional Law of India, vol 2, 4 ed. pg. 1923-1926 | Shiva Rao, The Framing of India's Constitution, Select Documents, Vol. 2
  12. Hasan, Zoya. “Politics of Inclusion: Castes, Minorities, and Affirmative Action.” Oxford University Press, 2009.
  13. South African Constitution, Section 211-212 (on Customary Law).

Further Reading

Feasibility & Roadmap [A Phased Approach]

The UCC cannot—and should not—be implemented through unilateral mandate. A top-down imposition of the UCC would risk inflaming the very divisions it seeks to heal. Given India's rich pluralism and constitutional sensitivities, the path forward must be phased, participatory, and built on trust rather than imposition. Here's a pragmatic roadmap to move from principle to practice:

  1. Short-Term (1–3 Years): Reform Within Personal Laws

Approach: Codify, modernize, and equalize existing religious personal laws with gender justice as the compass.

Goal: Build momentum through targeted wins without triggering existential fears of cultural erasure.

  1. Medium-Term (3–7 Years): Voluntary Civil Code (Opt-In Model)

Approach: Let the citizens choose the civil over the sacred—without coercion.

Goal: Normalize the UCC by choice, not compulsion, shifting it from ideology to utility.

  1. Long-Term (7–15 Years): National Civil Framework with Constitutional Anchoring

Approach: Consensus-crafted, culturally sensitive, legally (and, justly) binding.

Goal: Shift the UCC from a tool of political posturing to a testament of constitutional maturity.

The fundamental basis of this thought process is to understand that reform is a relay, not a sprint. If done right, the UCC need not be a one-size-fits-all straightjacket. It can be a layered, evolving framework: uniform in its commitment to justice, not in cultural flattening. The real question is not if India can have a UCC, but whether we have the civic patience, political integrity, and cultural humility to build one that is not only just—but justly built.

As Ambedkar envisioned, equality in civil life—particularly for women—is the litmus test of national maturity. "I measure the progress of a community by the degree of progress which women have achieved." —Dr. B.R. Ambedkar