Uniform Civil Code in India: Article 44, Cases, Uttarakhand UCC 2024

The Uniform Civil Code in India is one of the longest-running constitutional conversations the country has had with itself. The phrase appears just once in the Constitution, in Article 44 of the Directive Principles of State Policy, where the State is asked to “endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” Seventy-five years after that line was written, the Uniform Civil Code in India remains partially realised, contested in courtrooms, debated in Parliament, and now operationalised in one state, Uttarakhand, through its 2024 Act.

The idea is simple to state and difficult to execute. Replace the patchwork of personal laws governing marriage, divorce, succession, adoption, and maintenance, which currently differ by religion, with a single secular code that applies to every citizen. The promise is gender justice and equality before law. The fear, often voiced by minorities, is that uniformity will become a vehicle for majoritarianism. The Uniform Civil Code in India therefore touches Articles 14, 15, 25, and 26 simultaneously, which is why almost every major judgment on personal law in the last forty years has nudged Parliament toward Article 44.

This explainer walks through the constitutional text, the Constituent Assembly debates that placed UCC in the directive principles rather than the fundamental rights, the four landmark Supreme Court rulings that kept the conversation alive, the Goa exception, the Uttarakhand UCC of 2024, and the 21st and 22nd Law Commission reports that reached different conclusions a decade apart.

Quick Facts on Uniform Civil Code in India

• Constitutional location. Article 44, Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy).
• Text. “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.”
• Nature. Non-justiciable directive, not a fundamental right.
• Borrowed from. Inspired by similar provisions in the Irish Constitution and the moral framing of European civil codes.
• Implemented in. Goa (continuing Portuguese Civil Code, 1867) and Uttarakhand (UCC Act, 2024, in force March 2025).
• Key cases. Shah Bano (1985), Sarla Mudgal (1995), John Vallamattom (2003), Shayara Bano (2017).
• Law Commission view. 21st Commission (2018) said UCC “neither necessary nor desirable” at this stage; 22nd Commission (2023) reopened public consultation.
• Personal laws affected. Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Parsi, and Jewish family laws.

What Article 44 of the Constitution Says

Article 44 is short, declarative, and politically combustible. It places the obligation on the State, which under Article 12 includes Parliament and the legislatures of every State, to work toward a uniform civil code. Because it sits in Part IV alongside other directive principles, it cannot be enforced by any court. A citizen cannot file a writ asking for UCC to be enacted. The judiciary can only urge, recommend, and remind.

Yet directive principles are not decorative. The Supreme Court has repeatedly read them with fundamental rights to enlarge the meaning of liberty, equality, and dignity. The Uniform Civil Code in India is therefore not a dead letter. It is a constitutional aspiration that interacts with Article 14 equality, Article 15 non-discrimination, Article 21 dignity, and the freedom of religion under Article 25.

Constituent Assembly Debates on UCC

The framers fought hard over Article 44. The draft article, then numbered 35, was placed in the directive principles after a sharp debate on 23 November 1948.

Muslim members including Mohammad Ismail Sahib, Naziruddin Ahmad, Mahboob Ali Baig, B. Pocker Sahib, and Hussain Imam moved amendments to either drop the article or insert a proviso protecting personal laws. They argued that personal law was integral to religious identity and that imposing a uniform code would violate Article 25.

K.M. Munshi rejected this framing. He pointed out that the Indian Penal Code already applied uniformly to all communities and that personal law was not a religious matter but a civil one. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar called UCC a step toward “social solidarity.” Dr. B.R. Ambedkar gave the most decisive reply. He said India already had a uniform criminal code, a uniform code of civil procedure, a uniform law of transfer of property, and a uniform commercial code. Only the small island of personal law had been left untouched, and Parliament should be free to legislate on it in stages, perhaps initially making the code optional.

The Assembly chose Ambedkar’s path. Article 44 was adopted as a directive, not a fundamental right, leaving the timing to future Parliaments. The Uniform Civil Code in India thus carries the original intent of gradualism.

Shah Bano Case 1985: The Trigger

The most consequential judicial intervention came in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985). A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud held that a divorced Muslim woman was entitled to maintenance from her former husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a secular provision that applies to all citizens regardless of religion.

Crucially, the court used the judgment to lament that Article 44 had “remained a dead letter” and urged the government to frame a common civil code. The political reaction was sharp. The Rajiv Gandhi government passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which appeared to dilute the Shah Bano ruling by limiting maintenance to the iddat period. The episode pushed UCC into mainstream political vocabulary and tied it permanently to the Shah Bano case.

Sarla Mudgal Case 1995

Ten years later, Justice Kuldip Singh in Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India dealt with Hindu men who converted to Islam solely to contract a second marriage and escape bigamy charges under the Hindu Marriage Act. The court held such conversions to be a fraud on personal law and the second marriage void.

Justice Kuldip Singh used the judgment to directly ask the government when it would discharge its obligation under Article 44. He noted that successive governments had been “wholly remiss” in their duty. The Uniform Civil Code in India was framed not as a communal demand but as a constitutional promise.

John Vallamattom Case 2003

In John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003), Chief Justice V.N. Khare struck down Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which restricted Christians from bequeathing property for religious or charitable purposes. The judgment again called for a uniform civil code, observing that personal laws lead to discrimination between citizens and that Article 44 had still not been implemented.

Shayara Bano 2017 and the Triple Talaq Verdict

The Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) decision, a 3:2 majority, struck down instant triple talaq as unconstitutional. Though the court did not directly invoke Article 44, the ruling led to the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which criminalised triple talaq. The verdict accelerated the policy momentum for codification and pushed minority personal law reform closer to the UCC question.

Goa Civil Code: The Living Model

Goa is the only Indian state where a uniform civil code already operates. The Portuguese Civil Code of 1867, retained at Goa’s liberation in 1961, applies to all Goans irrespective of religion. It governs marriage, divorce, succession, and adoption uniformly, with some carve-outs for community-of-property regimes.

The Supreme Court in Jose Paulo Coutinho v. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira (2019) praised Goa as a “shining example” and again exhorted Parliament to consider a national UCC. The Goa model demonstrates that a single civil code can coexist with cultural diversity, though critics note its colonial vintage and uneven application to some communities.

Uttarakhand UCC 2024: First Post-Independence State Code

The Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code Act, 2024 was passed by the state assembly on 7 February 2024 and received presidential assent on 11 March 2024. The Act came into force on 27 January 2025 after rules were notified.

Key features:

• Uniform marriage rules. Minimum age of 21 for men and 18 for women, monogamy mandatory, and compulsory registration within sixty days.
• Common divorce grounds. Cruelty, desertion, adultery, conversion, and irretrievable breakdown apply equally across religions.
• Equal inheritance. Sons and daughters receive equal share in ancestral and self-acquired property.
• Live-in registration. Couples in live-in relationships must register with the registrar, with penal consequences for non-registration.
• Exemption. Scheduled Tribes under Article 342 are exempted to protect customary tribal law.

The Act has been challenged on grounds of privacy under Article 21, freedom of religion under Article 25, and on the live-in registration provisions. The Uttarakhand UCC is now the template that other BJP-ruled states like Gujarat and Assam are studying.

Law Commission Reports: 21st and 22nd

The 21st Law Commission of India, chaired by Justice B.S. Chauhan, issued a Consultation Paper on Reform of Family Law in 2018. Its conclusion: a UCC “is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage.” Instead, it recommended reform of personal laws to remove gender discrimination, treating the goal as “equality within communities” rather than “equality across communities.”

The 22nd Law Commission, chaired by Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, reopened public consultation in June 2023 inviting views from citizens and religious organisations. Over 75 lakh responses were received. The Commission’s final report is awaited but its consultation alone shifted public discourse and provided cover for Uttarakhand’s law.

Arguments For the Uniform Civil Code

• Gender justice. Personal laws often discriminate against women in maintenance, inheritance, and divorce. A UCC equalises rights.
• Constitutional fidelity. Article 44 is an unfulfilled directive that successive courts have invoked.
• National integration. A common civil framework strengthens citizenship over community identity.
• Simplification. Litigants no longer need to prove which personal law governs them.
• Removes legal arbitrage. Conversions to evade personal law, as in Sarla Mudgal, become irrelevant.

Arguments Against the Uniform Civil Code

• Religious freedom. Articles 25 and 26 protect the right to practise and manage religious affairs.
• Federalism. Personal law is in the Concurrent List; a national code may override state customs.
• Pluralism. India’s strength has historically been legal pluralism with minority safeguards.
• Risk of majoritarianism. Critics fear a UCC drafted today will be coded in Hindu personal law assumptions.
• Tribal exemption. Scheduled Tribes have distinct customary laws that resist uniformity.

UCC and the Concurrent List Question

Personal law sits under Entry 5 of the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule. Both Parliament and State legislatures can legislate on marriage, divorce, infants and minors, adoption, wills, intestacy and succession. This is why Uttarakhand was constitutionally competent to enact its UCC. A national UCC would similarly require parliamentary legislation, with provisions to override conflicting state law under Article 254.

Comparative Glance

• Turkey. Adopted the Swiss Civil Code in 1926 as part of Kemalist reforms, replacing Islamic personal law.
• Tunisia. The Code of Personal Status, 1956, banned polygamy and equalised divorce rights.
• Indonesia. Retains religious courts but with a unified Marriage Law (1974).
• France. Napoleonic Code applies uniformly to all citizens regardless of religion.

India’s challenge is that its personal laws are constitutionally protected through religious freedom, unlike most of these jurisdictions where the state asserted secularism more aggressively.

How UCC Connects to Other Polity Topics

The Uniform Civil Code in India sits inside a wider web. It connects to Article 14 equality because differential personal laws raise classification questions. It connects to Article 20 on protection in criminal matters because the criminal–civil boundary is itself a uniformity argument. And it connects to the broader fundamental rights chapter because every UCC debate ends at the intersection of equality and religious freedom.

UPSC Prelims and Mains Angles

For prelims, remember that Article 44 is a directive principle, that Goa already has a UCC, that Uttarakhand became the first post-independence state to enact one, and that the 21st Law Commission did not recommend a UCC. For mains, the Uniform Civil Code in India is a classic GS-II question testing the federal balance, gender justice, and minority rights. The strongest answers cite Shah Bano, Sarla Mudgal, and the Uttarakhand template, then weigh constitutional morality against religious pluralism.

Frequently Asked Questions