Much debate has fared up about the Uniform Civil Code. The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) will ensure one law applies to all religious and tribal groups in the county in personal matters like divorce, inheritance, marriage, property, etc. Therefore, existing personal laws based on religion, like the Hindu Marriage Act (1955), the Muslim Personal Law Application Act (1937), etc., will be technically dissolved.
The constitution, through Article 44, says “the state shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout India,” thus implying the constitution directs the state to bring all communities together on matters that are currently governed by personal laws. However, Article 44 is a part of the directive principles, which are not enforceable by courts. For instance, Article 47 prohibits the consumption of intoxicating drinks; however, alcohol continues to be sold in many states since Article 47 forms part of the directive principles and is hence non-enforceable.
Another aspect of the UCC debate is whether states individually can bring UCC to their own respective states. Some legal experts say that since personal laws like marriage and property are a part of the concurrent list (where both the centre and state have the power to make law), states shall be allowed to enforce UCC individually in their own states. This, however, contradicts Article 44 of the Constitution, which mentions that UCC must be enforced throughout the country, which seems to imply individual states do not have the power. Additionally, if states were allowed to bring in their own UCC, a number of logistical problems could arise. For instance, what if ABC state has its own UCC where X and Y get married and later move to PQR state? Whose UCC do they follow?
The main argument against UCC is that it violates the fundamental right to practise a religion of one’s own choice, which allows respective religious communities to follow their own personal laws. This is quoted in Article 25, where “freedom of conscience and free propagation, practice, and profession of religion” is given, and Article 29, where “the freedom to protect minority’s language, script, etc.” is given. This contention had appeared during the parliamentary debates in 1948, and the makers therefore deliberately kept UCC out of the fundamental rights. It nevertheless was supported by important personalities such as Br. Ambedkar also had “extreme sympathy” of Jawaharlal Nehru. Despite all the support, the power of personal laws was kept on the concurrent list, giving both the state and the centre the authority of legislation. If the framers intended on implementing UCC, they could have added personal laws to the union list.
Similar opposition has been voiced by the tribals in the country as well, like the Rashtriyawadi Tribal Ekta Parishad, which approached the Supreme Court in 2016 seeking protection of their customs and traditions from a potential UCC. Further, in Nagaland, existing customary laws have primacy over federal laws with respect to personal laws such as marriage and land ownership.
Another argument posed by the counter is that if codified laws like the IPC and CRPC do not follow the ‘one nation, one law’ motto, then how can the same be applied to personal laws of diverse groups? It is also alleged that the UCC could impose a Hinduized Code as well.
The Law Commission stated in its 2018 125-page report that the UCC at this point is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage and recommended that personal laws be studied and amended. As of 2024, the 22nd Law Commission recently asked about the views on UCC of various religious groups and the public.
