The debate over the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has flared up again in India after Uttarakhand Governor Lt. Gen. Gurmit Singh (Retd.) returned amendment bills to the state's UCC and anti-conversion laws for redrafting, citing technical flaws and clerical errors. These developments come nearly a year after Uttarakhand became the first state to implement the UCC in January 2025, fulfilling a key BJP election promise.
New Delhi, December 20, 2025, 11: 59 AM IST
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has once again moved to the centre of India’s constitutional and political discourse after the Uttarakhand Governor returned the State’s proposed UCC and religious conversion amendment Bills, citing technical deficiencies and punitive inconsistencies.
The move has reopened an old but unresolved debate; one that sits at the crossroads of equality, religious freedom, and India’s deeply plural social order.
Enshrined in Article 44 of the Directive Principles of State Policy, the UCC seeks a single set of laws governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, and succession for all citizens, regardless of religion.
Proponents hail it as a step toward equality and gender justice, while critics warn of threats to religious freedom, cultural diversity, and India’s federal structure.
The strongest case for a UCC lies in its potential to advance gender justice. Across religious communities, several personal laws continue to place women at a disadvantage, whether in inheritance rights, divorce procedures, maintenance entitlements, or guardianship.
Prof. Nipunika Shahid of Christ University, Delhi NCR, observes:
“Judicial milestones such as the Shah Bano case (1985) exposed these inequities, forcing the nation to confront the tension between personal law and constitutional equality.”
Must Read: Parliament Passes SHANTI Bill, Opening India’s Nuclear Energy Sector to Private Companies
A uniform, gender-neutral civil code could ensure that individual rights flow from citizenship rather than religious identity.
Goa’s civil code, often cited in this context, offers a working example of how relative uniformity can coexist with religious freedom while delivering more equitable outcomes for women.
Equally significant is the argument grounded in Article 14; the guarantee of equality before the law.
India’s plural personal law system results in citizens being governed by different legal standards for identical civil matters purely on the basis of religion. Divorce, succession, and adoption are regulated by varying norms, producing unequal outcomes.
A UCC seeks to correct this anomaly by standardising civil obligations and entitlements. Judicial observations in cases such as Sarla Mudgal (1995) underscore the Constitution’s long-standing aspiration for legal uniformity in civil matters.
The case for reform is further strengthened by concerns over legal complexity. India’s family law regime requires courts to interpret religious doctrines alongside statutory provisions, often leading to inconsistent judgments and prolonged litigation.
Despite the presence of specialised family courts, the system remains overburdened. A clear, secular, and codified civil law framework could bring greater certainty, reduce interpretative conflicts, and improve access to justice.
State-level codifications like Goa’s demonstrate how legal clarity can enhance predictability and public confidence.
Yet, the obstacles to a UCC are neither minor nor abstract. Personal laws are deeply interwoven with religious belief and cultural identity.
A rigid or hurriedly imposed UCC risks being perceived as an intrusion into the freedom of religion guaranteed under Article 25.
Judicial precedents, including the Shirur Mutt case (1954), have repeatedly emphasised the need to protect essential religious practices, highlighting the constitutional sensitivity involved in reforming personal laws.
Prof. Shahid adds:
“India’s vast social diversity adds another layer of complexity. Legal and cultural practices vary not just between religions but within communities, regions, and tribes. While most inheritance systems are patrilineal, tribal societies such as the Khasi, Jaintia, and Garo follow matrilineal traditions. A uniform template risks flattening these lived realities, inviting resistance and uneven implementation; particularly since family law falls under the Concurrent List.”
Perhaps the most persistent concern is the perception of majoritarian bias. Minority communities fear that the UCC could mirror majority norms under the guise of neutrality.
The political turbulence following the Shah Bano judgment stands as a reminder that personal law reform, if pursued without consensus, can deepen social polarisation. Recognising this, the Supreme Court in Pannalal Bansilal (1996) cautioned against abrupt implementation, advocating a gradual and consensual approach.
Practical challenges are equally daunting. Integrating a maze of codified and uncodified laws into a single framework poses serious administrative hurdles.
Issues such as Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) taxation, adoption norms, and maintenance regimes complicate the exercise. There is also a contemporary concern that “uniformity” may not necessarily translate into progress; particularly if the UCC entrenches heteronormative family structures and overlooks LGBTQ+ rights.
The way forward, therefore, lies not in sweeping uniformity but in calibrated reform. A phased, consultative, and rights-based approach; focused on eliminating discriminatory provisions, prioritising gender-neutral laws, and institutionalising broad stakeholder dialogue; offers a more sustainable path.
Drawing selectively from the best practices across personal laws and allowing states to function as laboratories of reform can balance equality with diversity.
Ultimately, the UCC represents a enduring constitutional ideal that requires careful navigation. Grounded in constitutional values rather than short-term politics, a thoughtfully crafted code could deliver greater gender justice and legal efficiency while honouring India’s rich pluralistic tapestry.
