Discuss the possible factors that inhibit India from enacting for its citizens a uniform civil code as provided for in the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Article 44 directs the state to endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India. Ambedkar in the CA: "I personally do not understand why religion should be given this vast, expansive jurisdiction so as to cover the whole of life."

The case for UCC

• Incomplete sovereignty: A state that has one criminal law (BNS), one tax law (GST), one contract law (Indian Contract Act) but multiple personal laws depending on religion is not fully sovereign over its territory.
• Judicial consistency. The SC has called for UCC in at least four landmark cases ( Shah Bano (1985), Sarla Mudgal (1995), John Vallamattom (2003), Pannalal Bansilal) making it the most persistent judicial recommendation that no government has implemented.
• Gender justice: Personal laws across all communities systematically disadvantage women.
• Ex Muslim maintenance law (pre-Shayara Bano) permitted instant triple talaq;
• Hindu coparcenary (pre-2005) excluded daughters;
• Christian succession (pre-John Vallamattom) restricted bequests.

UCC's purpose is not religious uniformity but gender equality within personal law domains — removing discrimination that survives only because it is sheltered by religious identity.

Possible factors that inhibit India from enacting for its citizens a uniform civil code

• Constitutional protection to personal laws: In State of Bombay v.

Narasu Appa Mali (1952), the Bombay HC held that personal laws are not "laws in force" under Article 13 and thus not subject to FR challenge.

• Constitutional competence ambiguity: "Marriage and divorce" is Entry 5 of List III (Concurrent List), giving both Centre and states legislative competence.
• Group rights architecture — Arts. 25–26, 30: Marriage and inheritance are central to most religious traditions, UCC is perceived as a direct violation of the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine — creating an internal constitutional tension.
• Non-justiciability of Art. 44: Being a DPSP, Art. 44 is non-enforceable in any court; no writ lies to compel its implementation.
• Uniformity is not a norm in India: the Sixth Schedule (tribal areas), Art. 371(A–J) (special provisions for northeastern states)
• Ex: Even Uttarakhand’s UCC excluded Tribal communities.

How can India resolve the UCC debate?

• Harmonisation over uniformity (Law Commission 2018): Codify personal laws within each community to remove discriminatory provisions, rather than replacing all personal laws with a single code.

Equality between men and women within each community should precede equality between communities. This is constitutionally sounder and practically achievable.

• Revitalise the Special Marriage Act 1954: SMA already provides a voluntary secular framework for inter-faith marriages and for those who choose to opt out of personal laws.
• Issue-specific uniform laws: The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 already apply uniformly across communities on specific gender justice issues without touching religious identity.
• Deliberative consensus-building: A Parliamentary Standing Committee process involving religious communities, women's groups, tribal organisations, and northeast communities.

Rather than rushing a national UCC before implementation challenges are understood, Uttarakhand UCC 2024 should be evaluated first — its judicial challenges (Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind petition pending), tribal exemption paradox, live-in registration controversy, and extraterritorial application questions should inform national debate before replication.