Author: S Pranati Rao, RV University, Bengaluru

In a way, India is almost an anomaly in the world, being one of few secular democracies that does not have a common set of personal laws. Their citizens fall under the realm of personal laws pertaining to their religions when issues of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption arise. The idea of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), which means one common set of civil laws for all, has forever been a matter enshrined within Article 44 of the Indian Constitution; however, even today it continues to be one of the least agreed-upon topics in the country.

With India struggling with what it means to be a modern democracy that also pays homage to religious pluralism, the question becomes one of — is India prepared for the Uniform Civil Code or not? This blog takes a deep dive into the origins of the UCC, the case for and against it, and whether the present legal and societal environment makes it even an option.

“The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.”

Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a term used to describe a suggestion in India to substitute personal laws derived from the scripture and custom of each large religious community by a uniform set of rules applicable to all citizens. These rules would apply to matters like marriage, divorce, maintenance, succession, guardianship, and adoption.

The Constitution framers put UCC in the Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 44), with a hope that one day the Indian state would adopt a uniform code that guarantees equality and justice in the private domain.

The debate continues to persist due to recent years' court judgments, government observations, and public discussions. The Indian Law Commission called for public comments on the subject in 2023, while some State Governments have started to work towards having state-specific civil codes (for example, Uttarakhand passed the UCC Bill in 2024).  

The interest has increased in the UCC bill as having other effects on reform of laws but as a prospect for giving impetus to gender equality, secularism, and social solidarity. But, is society ready?

1. Constitutional Directive (Part IV, Article 44)

•The Directive Principles of State Policy demand a UCC to provide legal uniformity in matters relating to civil laws such as marriage, divorce, and inheritance for all citizens.

2. Individual Rights vs. Community Rights (Part III Conflict)

• Personal laws have been formed on the basis of religion and are discriminatory against women.

• A UCC would encourage personal equality (Articles 14-24) rather than community rights (Articles 25-30).

3. Feminist Ambitions (Pre-1990s)

•The initial women's movements (such as the 1937 All India Women’s Conference) viewed UCC as a means to achieve gender equality.

• Uniformity would end gender discrimination in personal laws, according to the belief.

4. Examples of reform success

• Examples of reform include:

  1. Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Christian law)

  2. Domestic Violence Act, 2005

  3. Juvenile Justice Act, 2006 (enabling all to adopt) demonstrates the advantage of legislation over inflexible personal laws.

5. Common, Egalitarian Code Advocacy

•Feminist organizations such as Saheli, PUDR, and the Forum Against Oppression of Women support a single, gender-fair civil code (not "uniform" necessarily).

6. Patriarchal Personal Laws Challenge

• Personal laws were enacted during colonial times under heteronormative patriarchal family formations.

•Substituting them with contemporary, egalitarian law would allow for recognition of:

1. Contractual relationships

2. Rights of polygamous women

3. Non-heteronormative unions

7. Property Rights for Women

• A UCC would universalize rights to ancestral property (as brought into Hindu law in 2005) and challenge prevailing patrilineal inheritance norms.

1.Majoritarian Bias (Hindu Right's Frame)

• The UCC, as advocated by the BJP and such actors, is viewed as:

• A device for homogenizing cultures

• Phrased as rescuing minority women from their groups

• Assumes Hindu laws are already gender-fair (which they are not)

2. Misleading Assumption of Reform

• Deceptive Assumption of Reform

• Hindu law wasn't reformed, merely codified (1955–56), formalizing upper-caste, North Indian mores.

• This suppressed more liberal local usage and solidified caste patriarchy.

3. Muslim Personal Law Not Inferior

• Muslim Personal Law Not Inferior

• Has elements more advanced than Hindu law:

• Marriage as a contract

• Mehr (bride price belonging to wife)

• Inheritance rights for women

• Legal accountability for polygamous husbands

4. UCC as a Threat to Minority Identity

• UCC as a Threat to Minority Identity

• Minorities fear the UCC will be utilized to destroy minority cultures.

• Assimilation anxiety makes minorities oppose even domestic reforms.

5. Colonial Origin of Personal Laws

• Personal laws today are colonial and made simple during British times, not ancient or natural.

• Describing them as real culture is inaccurate.

6. Uniformity ≠ Equality

• Feminist movements oppose "uniformity" as an aim.

• Uniform laws can:

• Impose dominant-caste norms

• Overlook the richness of gendered experience

• Marginalize queer and non-nuclear family forms

7. State’s Role in Property Reform Is Not Neutral

• Awarding property rights to women also serves the state's capitalist interests (e.g., less cumbersome land acquisition).

• There is a tension between family-based inheritance and individual possession preferred by the state.

• Steer clear of confrontation with religious communities.

• Sanction reforms in personal law.

• Promote larger gender-just paradigms, viz.:

  1. Workplace rights

  2. Domestic violence protection

  3. Legitimate recognition of various relationships.

The Supreme Court has consistently promoted the enactment of a UCC in its judgments time and again, like in Shah Bano (1985), Sarla Mudgal (1995), and Jose Paulo Coutinho (2019), observing that uniformity in the civil laws is something desirable for constitutional integrity.

But judicial preparedness should be supported by parliamentary clarity, public outreach, and cautious drafting to safeguard minority rights and prevent judicial adventurism.

Is Society Prepared?

India is experiencing a gigantic social transformation. More enlightened and urbanized, the young generation value individual rights over collective interests. So interfaith marriages are on the rise, as is homosexuality and single-parent adoptions. 

Yet the countryside still resists. Fear of identity erasure, opposition of churches, and disinformation remain serious barriers.

The preparedness of society is not only a question of readiness for reform, but also of faith in the motives for it.

The Way Ahead

Instead of imposing a one-size-fits-all UCC suddenly, India may think about:

• First codifying and reforming personal laws for gender justice,

• Voluntary UCC for willing entrants, such as a parallel civil code,

• Consultative legislation through discussion with everyone involved, including women's rights organizations and representatives of minorities.

UCC needs to be conceptualized not as an instrument of uniformity, but as a method of ensuring equality, justice, and dignity for every citizen.

India's foray into personal laws is both its strength and dilemma — a marker of profound pluralism but a test of equality. The Uniform Civil Code presents a constitutional ideal worthy of being pursued, but only by consent, education, and understanding.

So, is India prepared for the UCC?

Legally, yes. Politically, doubtfully. Socially, not quite — but the process has certainly started.

"Uniformity is not unity. Equality is."

The true challenge is not in establishing a shared code, but in developing common trust.