Written By – Gayathri J Vishwanath
Introduction: India’s Plural Legal System
India is a diverse country, with a diverse set of religions and cultural beliefs. From a legal perspective, this means the different groups follow different traditions and customs for personal matters like marriage, divorce, and other family matters. In the political landscape in India, the right wing, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is a strong proponent of a Uniform Civil Code to consolidate the currently diverse legal framework surrounding the personal laws in India. However, the left wing, which is already a very vocal supporter of the religious minorities in India, like Muslims, believes that the implementation of the UCC is a majoritarian policy, meaning that it would favour the Hindu community the most, if implemented. The main question that arises is whether the UCC is a need for our diverse and dynamic legal framework, or if it is a threat to religious and cultural minorities, like northeastern tribes. To answer this question, one must first understand the historical background to the UCC and analyse its pros and cons.
Colonial Origins of Personal Law Division
The concept of UCC dates back to the colonial era. After their arrival, the British noticed the different laws and practices for different groups being practiced all across India, and felt this was chaotic and complicated. However, they never codified personal laws, for fear of backlash from the communities. Hence, even in 1835, when the British government submitted a report stressing the need for uniformity in the codification of Indian law, they stressed on exclude Hindu and Muslim personal law outside of such codification. Hence began the divide in personal laws in India. This differentiation in personal laws was made more evident with the codification of various Hindu personal laws in the early 1950s, with the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 etc. This made the personal laws divided based on religion, with Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis included in the former acts, and Muslims left to follow the law of Sharia that already exists in their customs, not even attempting to codify these laws.
UCC in the Constitution and Judicial Advocacy
A precursor to the UCC may be found in the passing of the Special Marriage Act in 1954, which regulates marriage and divorce of two individuals, irrespective of religion. However, this is an optional framework and is only for those who wish not to register their marriages under personal law. The framers of the Constitution, led by BR Ambedkar, introduced the provision for UCC as a directive principle of state policy under Article 44. It states that the State must endeavor to secure for the citizens of India a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India. Hence, UCC debate was sparked in the constituent assembly itself, where Ambedkar was a strong proponent of it, while many muslim members and members of minority communities opposed the idea. This debate has continued in the lifespan of India’s democracy, but has seen some highs and lows based on the various events that took place in the legal and political sphere of the time. One such pivotal case was the Shah Bano case, which criminalised the use of triple talaq as a form of divorce by men in muslim marriages. It was declared unconstitutional as it abridged fundamental rights and was discriminatory towards women. In its judgment, the Supreme Court re-emphasized the need for a uniform civil code, arousing discussion about the same across the country. The Apex court, led by YV Chandrachud, reiterated the importance of a uniform civil code to avoid the clash of beliefs and to ensure the settlement of such issues by a uniform set of laws. However, many governments that have followed this judgment have hesitated and restrained themselves from acting upon the implementation of the UCC in India. Why, some may ask, and the answer lies in the political mindset that is prevalent in India – appeasing the vote bank. The main objective of any political party in India is to secure a majority in the vote bank, and to do so they have to implement policies that are viable to get the most votes. The concept of a UCC is very controversial, and minority communities stand strongly against it. By promising to implement UCC, any party is digging its own grave by angering these minority communities and, hence, losing out on a major part of its voting populace. But the question that arises is, is the UCC as harmful to the minority as they believe?
Perception of the UCC Among Minority Communities
The concept of UCC has always been misunderstood by minority communities in India. They believe that the passing of a bill that brings uniform personal laws will be of the majority religion, and that it would impede their right to follow whichever religion they wish. The UCC implemented in Goa already is used as an example of success. Marriage, divorce and succession laws in Goa are uniform and implemented irrespective of an individual’s religion. This would be a perfect way to uphold the principle of secularism, which expects the State to be neutral in matters of religion and that all religions must be treated equally. Hence, it would ensure that personal laws are not restricted to people based on religion and all relationships that arise out of these personal laws are treated equally before the law. Another aspect that must be taken into consideration is the rights of women. Historically, women in India have been discriminated against, as the society has been patriarchal in nature for the longest of time. This means that religious laws can also be found to be discriminatory towards women, with triple talaq being a prime example of the same. Considering this, the right to equality cannot be overridden by the right to practice one’s religion as Article 14 is more universal and guaranteed than the latter. The implementation of the UCC would uplift women to the same status as men in a marriage/succession and give them equal rights and duties.
Hence, the concept of a UCC is not discriminatory to the minority communities as they believe – it is secular and efficient, and can bring about much more clarity and ease in the regulation of personal matters in the State. However, despite its positive aspects, there has been large amounts of backlash from different communities. Tribes in the North East are strongly against the idea of the UCC, threatening to spark riots and physical altercations if the Bill on the same were introduced or passed in the Parliament.
Law Commission’s Divergent Opinions
In its 2018 consultation paper, the 21st law commission concluded that a uniform civil code was neither necessary nor desirable at this stage in India’s democracy. The commission came to the conclusion to codify all personal laws, rather than implementing a uniform law for all of them – i.e muslim personal laws which are uncodified could be codified to ensure gender equality for muslim women, rather than the implementation of a UCC for all. However, soon after, in 2023, the Law commission again brought up the UCC, by starting a poll across the country, trying to understand the sentiment and to gain consensus on the passing of a law. This was ironic, considering what the commission had said only 5 years before, but they did not end up submitting any report on the topic of a uniform civil code at all.
So, what has been done about the UCC? The right wing BJP led government has been working to implement the same for many years, since 1989. The BJP’s manifesto from those years showed three core promises – the construction of the Ram temple, the abrogation of article 370 and the implementation of the UCC. With two of those completed, the BJP is working hard on the implementation of the third. The issue is that the UCC has always been associated with being a majoritarian policy as it has been clubbed with these other promises which show a clear incline towards pro hindu movements. The BJP, for fear of large amounts of backlash, has decided to implement the UCC as a test in some states, to use the criticisms as a way to create a template for all future UCC laws. One such example is the State of Uttarakhand, which has a 14% muslim population. The objective is to launch the UCC there and in other states that have expressed interest in doing the same, like Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. The reason for implementing UCC in states separately is that laws on marriage, divorce and inheritance fall in the concurrent list in the Constitution of India (Schedule 7, List III). Hence, both the States and the Center can formulate frameworks related to these subjects. If a central legislation is to come later, it will be applicable side by side with the state legislations.
Future Possibilities for Nationwide Enforcement
For this law to pass at the central level, there is a requirement of 2/3rd majority in both the Houses of the Parliament. Such numbers are not in favour of BJP currently. However, the BJP can implement such a code in at least 10 states with confidence of getting it ratified. This, the BJP believes, would mean that there may not be a need for a central UCC law anymore, if a majority of the states pass the UCC themselves. The rationale is that, once BJP led states show the positive effects of the UCC, it would pressure non BJP states to legislate on the UCC as well.
Comparative Perspectives: Lessons from Other Countries
Considering the concept of a uniform code, we must also compare it to other jurisdictions and how effective their implementation of uniform laws are. No country has fully implemented a UCC, but countries like France, Germany and Turkey have aspects of a uniform code that applies to all citizens, irrespective of religion or cultural practices. France has long been following a uniform code, since the establishment of the Napoleonic Code in 1804. It was one of the first examples of a comprehensive legal code that uniformly applied to all citizens, irrespective of class of religion and applies to property, civil rights, family law etc. Even Germany’s German Civil Code which was brought into effect in 1900, provided a unified legal framework for all citizens in the German empire and covered a wide range of personal and civil matters. Coming to Turkey, which is a majority muslim country also has a uniform code which was brought into effect after their legal reforms in the 1920s and 1930s. The Turkish Code which was inspired by the Swiss Civil Code was adopted in 1926 and replaces the islamic laws that were in place. The implementation of this code led to the empowerment of women and abolishing of oppressive muslim laws that encourage polygamy and unfair forms of divorce. In the aspects of inheritance and succession, women were given equal rights and the implementation of this code meant the removal of a religion based civil law, upholding the principles of secularism in the country. In France, historically, there were customary laws in the north, Roman law in the south, leading to a divide and dispute over the implementation of civil laws in the nation. The use of a code led to the creation of a consistent legal standard across the nation.
Conclusion: Balancing Uniformity and Diversity
In conclusion, the debate over implementing a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India, which would replace religion-specific personal laws governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption with a common legal framework, remains contentious, with lessons to be drawn from Turkey and France. Proponents argue that a UCC would promote gender equality, national unity, and secularism. In India, where personal laws often entrench patriarchal norms (e.g., unequal inheritance under Muslim law or Hindu joint family provisions), a UCC could level the playing field, aligning with constitutional guarantees of equality. However, critics highlight the risk of alienating religious minorities, particularly Muslims who view personal laws as integral to identity. India’s pluralistic democracy—marked by deep religious diversity and a history of communal sensitivity—poses unique challenges. Thus, India needs a UCC tailored to its context, to ensure women’s empowerment, secularism, and clarity in justice.
