UCC is a needed but delayed legislation

• No doubt India needs a Uniform Civil Code (UCC). It is a constitutional mandate. Therefore, nobody can oppose it. What one can oppose is its contents, form, or structure. Of course, there can be deliberations as to what it should include and what it should not.
• UCC should be a secular code of legal provisions favouring no religion. Its prime objective is to ensure that women have equal rights to that of men in marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption. It would in no way do away with any religious belief, faith, or practice. It should focus exclusively on reforming family-related laws and nothing else.
• Almost all the civil laws, except the personal laws, are uniformly applicable to every citizen irrespective of their religion. By that, we have achieved the goal of UCC to a great extent.

• The State of Uttarakhand passes UCC
• With the passage of UCC in the legislative assembly on 7th February 2024, Uttarakhand became the first state in the country to implement a Uniform Civil Code, which presents common law for marriage, divorce, inheritance of property, etc.
   
• Constitution mandates UCC
• Article 44 of the Indian Constitution mandates that "the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India." That means the State shall strive to achieve a common civil code among its citizens.
• Though there were heated deliberations regarding UCC at the time of making of the Constitution, no consensus was in sight as to its framework or modalities of its implementation. This was because different sections of members of the Constituent Assembly understood it differently.
• Article 44 was a compromise formula intended to satisfy different warring factions.
   
• Personal laws were implemented under a law
• In the Sarala Mudgal judgment, the Supreme Court points out that the "respective personal laws were permitted by the British to govern the matters relating to inheritance, marriages etc. only under the Regulations of 1781 framed by Warren Hastings. The legislation - not religion - being the authority under which personal law was permitted to operate and is continuing to operate, the same can be superseded/supplemented by introducing a uniform civil code."

Therefore, no progressive force or person can oppose the introduction of UCC for all the citizens in India, which runs counter to the spirit of Indian Constitution.

What does UCC intend to reform?

• The precise objective of UCC is to establish a common legal framework for all citizens, irrespective of their religion, in matters like marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption.
• It aims to do away with patriarchal personal laws and ensure gender equality.
• A UCC is expected to ensure that all citizens, irrespective of their gender, sex, religious, or cultural beliefs, are entitled to equal rights in marriage and related matters, including live-in relationships.
• In no way does it intend to restrict the beliefs, faiths, or diverse religious practices of any community or religious group.

Many laws have been made uniform in India

• During the British period, religious-based criminal laws were reformed piecemeal, resulting in the enactment of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and Indian Evidence Act.
• Commonly applicable civil laws such as the Registration Act, Limitation Act, Code of Civil Procedure, Transfer of Property Act, Dowry Prohibition Act, Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, and Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act were formulated.
• No effort was made to codify family-related personal laws into a unified one, except for Hindus, Christians, and Parsis.
• Muslims were allowed to be governed by uncodified personal laws, which allow polygamous marriages, instant divorces, and unequal division of property between males and females.
• Even Muslim-majority countries like Turkey and Egypt have enacted a common civil code. Nowhere in the world are personal laws considered as sacrosanct as in India.

Demand for UCC is very old

• The demand for a UCC was first made in 1937 by the All India Women's Conference to end discrimination against women in personal laws.
• The demand later resurfaced in the Constituent Assembly while deliberating the Hindu Code Bill and has been raised in judicial forums multiple times.
• Now, the ruling party has taken it as a political agenda.

Hindu law reform was a step towards UCC

• The Hindu Code Bill was a comprehensive legislation that sought to unify family laws for all non-Christian, non-Muslim, and non-Parsi people.
• Despite initial resistance, the Hindu Code was eventually passed as four separate laws, which have evolved over time to incorporate gender justice.
• The Jewish law remains uncodified, while the Christian and Parsi communities have their own codified marriage and divorce laws.
• In the Mary Roy case, the Supreme Court granted equal property rights to Christian daughters, ending gender discrimination in Christian families.
• Muslim personal laws, however, have remained resistant to gender justice reforms.

UCC turns into a political game plan

• UCC has become a political issue, with parties taking sides to appeal to different voter bases rather than focusing on legal reform.
• Opponents argue that implementing UCC would violate their Fundamental Rights under Articles 25 and 29 of the Constitution.
• The Constitution allows for the regulation of secular aspects of religious practices under Article 25(2).

SC wants the Government to formulate UCC

• The Supreme Court has repeatedly called for UCC implementation in cases like:
• Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) – Maintenance rights under Section 125 of CrPC.
• Jordan Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra (1985).
• Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995) – Second marriages by conversion declared invalid.
• The Supreme Court criticized the government's inaction on UCC, stating that more than 80% of Indians are already under codified personal laws.
• In Shayara Bano v. Union of India, the SC outlawed triple talaq as a step toward gender justice.

Proposing UCC without a draft remains a mystery

• The government has not released a draft UCC, leading to speculation and political manipulation.
• The 21st Law Commission failed to draft one but suggested family law reforms.
• The 22nd Law Commission is now working on the issue, likely aligning with the government's stance.
• There is widespread apprehension that the current UCC push is politically motivated rather than a genuine legal reform initiative.
• To gain public trust, a draft should be prepared and put up for public debate rather than being used as a political tool.

The political tone of UCC proponents appears communal despite its progressive aims. Progressive forces must highlight its social benefits to counter its communal undertones.

• Minority rights may conflict with UCC
  • There are protective provisions safeguarding the identity and interests of religiously, linguistically, and culturally disadvantaged groups.
  • These come under Articles 29(1) and 30(1) for minorities, Articles 244(1) & 244(2) for the 5th and 6th Schedules, and Articles 371A and 371G for Nagaland and Mizoram.
  • The UCC may conflict with such provisions in north-eastern states, requiring legal, political, and social resolution.
     
• Divorce laws need to be made more flexible
  • Divorce laws vary across religions based on their views on marriage.
  • Christian law stigmatizes divorce, though courts have softened some aspects.
  • The Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act is cumbersome and time-consuming.
  • Under Muslim law, women have several grounds for divorce, whereas men do not need to state grounds.
  • A progressive UCC would standardize divorce processes while ensuring flexibility and gender equality.
     
• UCC should be a gender-neutral law
  • All married and live-in partners should be entitled to adopt a child, regardless of sexual orientation.
  • A progressive UCC should ensure equal inheritance rights for all children, whether biological, adopted, surrogate, legitimate, or illegitimate.
  • Most personal laws in India discriminate against women in matters of succession and inheritance.
• HUF for tax purposes needs to be done away with
  • A Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) includes direct descendants of a common ancestor and their wives and daughters.
  • HUF is treated similarly to an individual account for tax purposes, which should be abolished.
     
• Uniformity need not end diversity
  • The Supreme Court in T.M.A Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka stated that secularism in India involves preserving diverse identities while uniting as one nation.
  • India does not need complete uniformity but should ensure diversity aligns with universal human rights principles, including gender justice.
     
• Special Marriage Act is a unified Code
  • The Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA) serves as a secular legal framework for marriage, divorce, and inheritance.
  • It allows individuals to adopt a secular legal provision without renouncing their religion.
  • No religious ceremony is required for marriage under SMA, and it ensures gender equality.
  • However, anomalies exist—e.g., Hindus married under SMA follow the Hindu Succession Act, while Muslims follow the Indian Succession Act.
     
• Requires a gender-just personal law code
  • India needs a non-discriminatory personal legal code that ensures gender justice rather than a uniform civil code.
  • The absence of a civil law for Muslims and some other communities has deepened religious divides in an already polarized political climate.
  • Reforms are also needed in Hindu and Christian personal laws.

No modern state professing secularism can permit religious doctrines to remain superior to the laws of the land. But diverse cultural practices need to be accommodated in the broad unified common law code. The UCC, if made properly, can make gender equality a reality. That is the ultimate purpose of UCC.

Further Reading:

1. Law Commission of India: Consultation paper on Reform of Family Law, 31 August 2018
2. The Constitution of India
3. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum [AIR 1985 SC 945]
4. Jordan Diengdeh v S.S. Chopra [AIR 1985 SC 935]
5. Sarla Mudgal v Union of India [AIR 1995 SC 1531]
6. Shayara Bano v Union of India