On 27 January, BJP-ruled Uttarakhand became the first state to implement a Uniform Civil Code, or UCC—a topic that has generated impassioned debate and divided opinion. This is a watershed moment as it represents the first coherent draft or model of a UCC, which until now had remained theoretical with no actual code in sight.
This is surprising, given that the idea had the support of courts, several women’s rights organisations, and political parties, especially the BJP. Yet, while the contents of the law are being debated by votaries and critics, its enactment raises as many questions as it seeks to resolve.
Chief among them: How does a state-level UCC fit into a constitutional framework that has long treated it as a national issue?
State-level UCC & Constitution question
To begin with, a state-level UCC raises a constitutional question on the interpretation of Article 44 of the Indian Constitution.
A Directive Principle of State Policy, Article 44 says that “the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.”
The phrase “throughout the territory of India” suggests that the code ought to have a national character rather than be implemented state by state.
This argument is bolstered by several Supreme Court rulings, primarily on minority issues. In successive judgments—Shah Bano (1986), Sarla Mudgal (1995), John Vallamattoom (2003), and ABC v. NCT of Delhi (2015)—the court has consistently exhorted the Union, rather than individual states, to enact a UCC.
Under the constitutional scheme, family and succession laws fall under the Concurrent List (Entry 5 of List III in the Seventh Schedule). This gives both Parliament and state legislatures the power to legislate on these matters. However, for a law to be applicable throughout India, as envisioned in Article 44, it must be enacted only by Parliament.
On the flip side, this interpretation stirs anxiety among opposition-ruled states, which see a national UCC as an assertion of Union dominance over states and dilution of the federal character of the Constitution.
Tribal rights and the UCC
The idea of implementing a national UCC is further complicated by the impact it may have on special constitutional provisions applicable to the Northeastern states and other tribal communities in India.
The customs of Northeastern states are protected under the Sixth Schedule under Article 244, which grant administrative autonomy to tribal communities. The Sixth Schedule also empowers regional and district councils in tribal areas of Tripura, Assam, Mizoram, and Meghalaya to legislate on customs and family matters. The Fifth Schedule similarly protects tribal customs in other states.
Moreover, Article 371 accords special status to Northeastern states, ensuring that parliamentary laws do not override customary practices unless the respective state legislatures give their approval.
Article 44, which calls for a nationwide UCC, is a standalone provision, with no other constitutional reference to it. In contrast, Articles 244, 371, and the Fifth and Sixth Schedules explicitly safeguard tribal customs, implying that a UCC may not apply to these regions.
Conundrum of colonial laws
Beyond the Northeast, the continued application of colonial-era foreign laws in some states and Union territories pose another challenge to the idea of a national UCC— an anomaly highlighted by scholars.
For instance, Goa and Daman & Diu continue to be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code of 1939—an anomaly sanctioned by a parliamentary legislation providing their continued application until they are amended or repealed by a subsequent law.
Similarly, in Puducherry, the French Civil Code of the early 19th century still applies to a sizable section of the population. These populations are exempt from the application of secular family laws such as the Special Marriage Act of 1954 and the Indian Succession Act of 1925. Almost all family laws exclude these territories from their ambit
It has been argued that the quest for a UCC should begin by repealing the foreign laws in these states and Union territories, and replacing them with the Special Marriage Act and the Indian Succession Act applicable elsewhere in the nation.
This argument appears viable, as these territories are ruled or administered by the BJP government, either through elected state governments or through Lieutenant Governors appointed on the recommendation of the Union government. It is pertinent to note that a similar course was adopted in 2019, when the Special Marriage Act and the Indian Succession Act were extended to the Union territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh after altering their status.
Also Read: UCC was debated more in the Constituent Assembly than in Uttarakhand. Why it’s a problem
What course will the BJP take?
The UCC has consistently featured in the BJP’s election manifestos, including for the 2024 national elections. The 2024 manifesto stated:
“BJP believes that there cannot be gender equality till such time Bharat adopts a Uniform Civil Code, which protects the rights of all women, and the BJP reiterates its stand to draw a Uniform Civil Code, drawing upon the best traditions and harmonising them with the modern times.”
Interestingly, while the manifesto used the word ‘Bharat’—implying a national UCC—it is not clear whether the party now prefers a state-level approach across the nation. In either case, it will have to navigate the complex maze of constitutional and faith-based issues that have plagued the UCC for decades.
Mohammad Nasir is Assistant Professor of Law at Aligarh Muslim University and author of Syed Mahmood: Colonial India’s Dissenting Judge (Bloomsbury 2022); he posts on X @Mohamma55165777. Maimuna Siddiqui reads law at Aligarh Muslim University. Views are personal.
(Edited by Asavari Singh)
“This is a well-written and informative article.”
First of all, I would like to put in that I whole-heartedly call myself a Layman when it comes talking about Law or Constitution..
I intend to give verbal shape to my feelings which hopefully will not hurt anyone except Andh-bhakts.
I think this UCC is just another tool to please the group of people who feel that they are always in danger in the country ruled by their political lords.
I feel sorry to see that even the educated section of the sociey gets trapped in the dirty game plan of vicious minds.
CAA NRC UCC…All these are the tools to brainwash the minds and fooling the people around, specially before elections.
Beware of all these game plans before you cry….
*For sick mentality I can only say Get Well Soon*
Ms. Adrika, apologies for my misplaced assumption.
The victimhood complex rears it’s ugle head in your assertion “Muslim community has borne the brunt of this law”. Can you back this statement of yours with facts and data from Uttarakhand? Can the UCC ever be a weapon to attack a specific community or caste? How is it even conceivable to a rational mind?
It’s quite clear that you are interested only in the political implications of the UCC.
Leaders of the Muslim community (e.g. Owaisi, etc.) who must take a progressive approach with an open mind for the betterment of the community are toeing the line of the AIMPLB. The AIMPLB’s comically regressive stance can be understood as they stand to lose all authority and prestige if the UCC is passed.
I believe, the focus of the civil/personal laws must be on justice and equality for people of both genders (as well as transgenders) across all castes and religions. The Manusmritis, Qurans, Bibles, Hadiths or Geetas should not be an obstacle in our attempt to achieve equality before the law and justice for everyone.
Mr Shivam Vij, firstly it’s bold of you to assume I’m a Hindu woman. Secondly, I raised that point because the article makes no mention of Muslims and in the current context, any serious discussion on the UCC is incomplete without addressing their position.
Nowhere did I suggest that Muslim personal law isn’t “blatantly patriarchal” – only that ignoring its political implications is a failure of analysis.
The comments from Ms. Adrika and Ms. Zainab Fatima are telling indeed.
It shows how Hindu feminists and Muslim women approach the issue of UCC. The modern Muslim woman wants a dialogue and debate on UCC – a fact-based and dispassionate one. While the woke secular Hindu feminist sees an attempt by the BJP to enforce it’s ideology on the Muslim community.
The secular Hindu feminist thinks of herself as the protector of the Muslim community. Her feminism is limited to the religions of Hinduism, Christianity, Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism. When it comes to Islam and it’s grossly regressive personal laws and savage Sharia laws, the Hindu feminist turns a blind eye. She pretends not to see the blatantly patriarchal construct of Muslim personal laws and the bestiality of the medieval Sharia laws.
This article does a great job of breaking down the debate around the Uniform Civil Code and whether it should be a state or national issue. Navigating this complex subject, where religious beliefs, gender equality, and the context of implementation intersect, is no easy task. While it deserves nuanced discussion, it often turns into a heated ideological standoff between supporters and critics of the UCC.
The piece is well-argued, but it sidesteps a crucial point that how the Muslim community has borne the brunt of this law. It fails to call out the code for what it is which is a hastily drafted instrument of political convenience, designed less for justice and more for reinforcing the ruling party’s ideology
Seems like Muslims across the world simply cannot adjust to secular principles and laws. They are hell-bent on having their separate personal laws. Given a choice, they will also wish to implement the absolutely regressive and savage Sharia laws.
And this, quite unfortunately, is not about radical and fanatic elements in Islam. The authors of this article seem to be well educated and urbanized Muslims. If a moderate Muslim is so retrograde and fights on behalf of such unjust and staunchly patriarchal personal laws, one shudders to imagine how hardline and regressive the fundamentalists are. No wonder the Taliban has banned girls education in Afghanistan.
No wonder the authors of the article are from Aligarh Muslim University – the spiritual home of the Pakistan Movement. The Muslim League stronghold which provided political and intellectual leadership to the Pakistan Movement and successfully partitioned India.
It’s really hard to understand why Indian Muslims are so bothered about the UCC? They migrate in huge numbers to the Gulf and US/UK for jobs and once there, are subjected to those countries respective UCCs. But they never complain. Never heard an Indian-origin Muslim in US complaining about the UCC in US.
Why are such unreasonable demands made by the Muslim community in India only?
Also, why is it that no other minority community has any issues with the UCC? One does not hear Sikhs or Jains or Buddhists being so paranoid about the UCC.