Legal Narrative
ABSTRACT:
The Uniform Civil Code represents one of the most significant and debatable questions concerning the relationship between constitution, personal laws, religious freedom and gender justice in India. Article 44 of the Constitution of India is contained in Part IV, which deals with the Directive Principles of State Policy (hereinafter used as DPSPs). It provides that “The state shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.”
Yet the provision sits within the non-justiciable DPSPs and has never fully implemented. Although the provision appears, it raises several important constitutional and legal issues relating to secularism, religious freedom, gender justice, and the protection of minority rights. In India, matters such as marriage, inheritance, divorce, guardianship, adoption have traditionally been regulated by different personal laws based on their religion and customary practices, including Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and Parsi laws.
In this paper I am going to discuss Article 44 and the concept of Uniform Civil Code (hereinafter used as UCC) from a constitutional and socio-legal perspective. Its relevant constitutional provision including Articles 25 along with personal laws and important decisions of Supreme Court such as Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, Shayara Bano v. Union of India, and recent legislative reforms.
KEYWORD
UCC, Article 44, DPSP, Personal Laws, constitutional law, Article 25, religious freedom, secularism, India, gender justice.
Introduction:
The idea of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India has been the subject of sustained debate since Independence. In essence, a UCC proposes a single set of laws to govern personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, and property rights for all citizens, irrespective of religion, caste, or gender. It seeks to consolidate the various religion-based personal laws presently in force in India into a unified secular code. The proposal concerns not only legal uniformity but also social justice, equality, and national identity1.
Article 44 has been read as a constitutional direction, yet it remains non-justiciable and cannot be enforced by a court of law. Because the provision sits within the Directive Principles rather than among the Fundamental Rights, its placement has long been regarded as problematic. Some treat it as a long-term aspiration, while others consider it imperative that the state move proactively towards a UCC as an integral part of the Constitution's vision of social justice and equality2.
The UCC debate also raises fundamental questions about state regulation of personal law. In India, personal-law systems have traditionally been rooted in religion: Hindu personal law draws on ancient sources such as the Manusmriti, while Muslim personal law is based on the Shariat and Islamic principles. Historically, the state refrained from intervening in these matters unless a practice was considered harmful or discriminatory. The adoption of a UCC would mark a significant shift in the relationship between religion and the state and would substantially affect the autonomy of religious communities in managing their internal affairs3.
Historical Background: The origins of the UCC in India:
The idea of a Uniform Civil Code was first advanced in India during the 1940s, when the Constitution was being drafted. Dr B.R. Ambedkar and other framers recognized that a modern republic should have a common set of laws governing its citizens. This principle was embodied in Article 44 of the Directive Principles of State Policy, which provides: The State shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.
India has historically had a variety of private laws relating to common and non-secular customs. The Indian Succession Act, 1865 and the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 were two limited attempts at unification brought about British colonial administration.
In India, the UCC discussion is still heated, with supporters focusing on gender justice and detractors ( someone who judge or criticizes something) raising issues related to non-secular and cultural rights. Personal legal rules have been gradually addressed by legal reforms, particularly with regard to gender equality.
How personal laws matters governed today?
Article 44 of the Constitution provides UCC for citizens throughout India. A UCC would apply the same set of secular personal laws to all people, irrespective of religion, caste, or tribe. India already has uniform criminal laws and common civil laws covering matters such as taxation, contracts, and negotiable instruments.
However, in matters such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance of property, various religious communities in India follow personal laws that are based on their religious doctrines. Hindus are governed by laws such as the Hindu Marriage Act (1955) and the Hindu Succession Act (1956), while many tribals within the Hindu religion may follow customary family laws under constitutional exceptions. Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs are covered by Hindu laws. Sikh marriages can also be registered under the Anand Marriage Act (2012). Christians and Parsis have their own personal laws, while Muslims are governed by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (1937).
What are the pros and cons?
The Constitution makers were divided over including a UCC in the Constitution. Some wanted it to be made a Fundamental Right to ensure uniformity in civil laws and secure equal rights for women. However, many members of the Muslim community were not in favour of including it in the Constitution as they felt that a uniform civil code would violate the fundamental right to
religion that is guaranteed in Part III. Finally, the provision relating to UCC was placed in the non-justiciable Part IV. There are several arguments over aspects of the UCC. The key arguments in its favour are, first, that it would make India secular in the true sense by subjecting
all citizens to the same personal laws. The second and most vital argument is gender justice: a UCC would ensure equal rights for women across religions in matters governed by personal laws.
The arguments against UCC are as follows. First, there can be potential conflict between the provisions of the UCC and guaranteed fundamental rights. Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees every person a fundamental right to practice a religion of one’s choice. Article 29 provides a fundamental right to any section of citizens to conserve their distinct culture. Second, the four States that have enacted UCC have exempted tribal population from its ambit. The reasons for such exemption are constitutional safeguards to protect tribal culture as well as the belief that many tribal customs in these matters provide adequate rights to women4.
Judicial interpretation and the UCC:
The judiciary has played an important part in interpreting and reinforcing the case for a Uniform Civil Code, even as significant challenges to its implementation remain.
In Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum5, the Supreme Court considered the application of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to a divorced Muslim woman. After being turned out of her marital home, Shah Bano Begum sought maintenance, giving rise to a dispute over whether her husband was obliged to provide it under Muslim personal law. Chief Justice Chandrachud held that Muslim personal law did not absolve a husband of the duty to support a financially dependent former wife. Affirming the objective of a uniform legal order and the promotion of gender equality, the Court confirmed that Section 125 of the CrPC (Section 144 of BNSS) applies to divorced Muslim women.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the significance of these concerns in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)6, struck down which addressed gender justice and the practice of instant triple talaq. In that case, the Court talaq-e-biddat, a form of Muslim personal law by which a husband could divorce his wife by pronouncing the word “talaq” three times. The decision was widely regarded as a step towards the empowerment of Muslim women and as consistent with the constitutional objectives of equality and fairness.
The Limits of Legislative Reform:
The most important limitation upon UCC legislation arises from the supremacy of the Constitution. Parliament and State Legislatures possess extensive legislative competence, but their enactments remain subject to judicial review. A UCC, like every other legislation, must comply with Fundamental Rights and other constitutional provisions. The legislature cannot rely upon Article 44 as an independent justification for legislation that violates Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 or 25–28.
The first significant limitation is the principle of equality under Article 14. Legislative reform must not create arbitrary distinctions or impose unequal burdens without constitutionally permissible justification. The modern doctrine of manifest arbitrariness further establishes that legislation may be invalidated where it is variable, irrational or disproportionate.
The second limitation concerns religious freedom under Article 25. The Constitution protects freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to constitutional limitations. However, Article 25 itself recognizes the State's power to regulate secular activities associated with religious practice and to enact laws for social welfare and reform. Consequently, the constitutional position does not establish an absolute immunity for every practice associated with religion.
A further limitation arises from minority and cultural rights. Personal laws can sometimes operate as expressions of community identity. A legislative framework that seeks complete uniformity must therefore consider whether it unnecessarily interferes with constitutionally protected cultural interests.
Conclusion:
Whether a UCC is a constitutional requirement or a political agenda remains unresolved. Article 44 of the Constitution calls for the enactment of a UCC as an aspirational goal, envisaging a uniform legal framework for all citizens regardless of religion. Despite this constitutional
direction, the legal, social, and political contestation surrounding its implementation has kept the issue at the centre of public debate. The controversy over the UCC is not merely a legal contest; it engages questions of religious freedom, gender equality, minority rights, and national integration. It raises issues concerning state intervention in personal law.
Recommendations:
Article 44 of the Constitution envisages the Uniform Civil Code as a benchmark for social and legal change. The judiciary has supported the idea of a UCC, notably in Shah Bano (1985) and in the triple talaq case (2017). These decisions raised the question whether personal law may override the constitutional ideals of equality and justice, particularly in relation to the rights of women. Because certain aspects of personal law conflict with fundamental rights, a gradual and incremental approach is preferable to the immediate introduction of a Uniform Civil Code. Targeted reforms of particular areas, such as marriage and inheritance law, could serve as a first step in the legislative process.
Gender justice should be central to any discussion of the UCC. It is essential to protect and standardize women's rights within communities, particularly in matters of divorce, maintenance, and inheritance. The empowerment of women through law should be a principal focus of reform.
FOOTNOTES:
1 D.D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India 456 (22d ed. 2015).
2S.P. Sathe, Constitutional Law of India 325 (LexisNexis Butterworths 4th edn. 2015).
3 H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India 1182 ( 4th edn. 2017).
4 https://share.google/d0k5gHoae1XddGb The Hindu (published on 18 September, 2026 visited at: 11:46 PM)
5 Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556.
6Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1
