Chhattisgarh sets up 5-member panel to prepare UCC draft; Justice Desai to head it too

The Chhattisgarh government constituted a five-member committee on June 25, 2026, tasked with preparing a draft Uniform Civil Code (UCC) for the state. The c...

What Happened

The Chhattisgarh government constituted a five-member committee on June 25, 2026, tasked with preparing a draft Uniform Civil Code (UCC) for the state.
The committee is headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, who simultaneously chairs similar UCC draft committees in Madhya Pradesh and has previously submitted the UCC draft for Uttarakhand (February 2024).
Other members include retired IAS officers Shatrughan Singh and M.K. Raut, senior advocate Mohan Pawar, and former principal Jyoti Rani Singh.
The committee's mandate covers marriage, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, adoption, and related personal law matters; it will consult citizens, organisations, and legal experts, and study UCC implementations in other states.
The cabinet approved the formation of the committee on April 15, 2026.
Tribal communities in Chhattisgarh — the Chhattisgarh Sarva Adivasi Samaj among others — have raised concerns that a UCC would override customary laws central to their social and cultural identity.

Static Topic Bridges

Article 44 — Uniform Civil Code as a Directive Principle

Article 44 of the Constitution of India, under Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy), states: "The State shall endeavour to secure for citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India." The DPSP are non-justiciable — they cannot be enforced in court — but they serve as guiding principles for legislative and policy action. Article 44 has been cited by the Supreme Court in multiple judgments as an unimplemented constitutional aspiration, with courts periodically urging Parliament and the executive to progress toward its realisation.

DPSPs are enumerated in Articles 36–51 of the Constitution.
Unlike Fundamental Rights (Part III), DPSPs are not enforceable in a court of law (Article 37), but they are fundamental to governance.
The Supreme Court first called attention to the need to implement Article 44 in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985), commonly known as the Shah Bano case.
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995) and John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003) further reiterated the need for a common civil code.

Connection to this news: Chhattisgarh's committee formation is a state-level step toward implementing the Article 44 aspiration. The debate over whether states can enact a UCC independently (as Uttarakhand has done) or only Parliament can do so is a live constitutional question.

State vs. Central Competence on Personal Laws

Personal laws — governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, and succession — fall under Entry 5 of the Concurrent List (Schedule VII) of the Constitution: "Marriage and divorce; infants and minors; adoption; wills, intestacy and succession; joint family and partition; all matters in respect of which parties in judicial proceedings were immediately before the commencement of this Constitution subject to their personal law." Both Parliament and state legislatures have power to legislate on Concurrent List subjects, with Parliament's law prevailing in case of repugnancy (Article 254).

Goa has had a common civil code (the Goa Civil Code, derived from the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867) since before Independence — making it a de facto UCC state.
Uttarakhand became the first state to enact a comprehensive UCC through legislation: the Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand Act, 2024, assented to by the President on March 13, 2024, and brought into force in 2025.
The Uttarakhand UCC exempts members of Scheduled Tribes from its provisions, allowing them to continue under customary laws.
States forming draft committees (Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh) are following Uttarakhand's legislative model.

Connection to this news: Chhattisgarh's committee is a step in a multi-state movement toward state-level UCC legislation. The constitutional competence of states to enact such laws (via the Concurrent List) has been demonstrated by Uttarakhand; the question of whether central uniformity requires a Parliamentary UCC remains open.

Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai — Profile and Role

Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai (born October 30, 1949) served as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India from 2011 until her retirement in 2014. Prior to this, she served as a Judge of the Bombay High Court. She was subsequently appointed Chairperson of the Press Council of India (from June 17, 2022). Her engagement with UCC drafting committees across multiple states makes her the primary technical architect of the state-UCC template emerging in BJP-governed states.

Uttarakhand: Chaired the expert committee constituted in May 2022; submitted the final draft to the Chief Minister in February 2024.
Madhya Pradesh: Chairs a high-level expert committee constituted in April 2026, tasked with studying feasibility and drafting a framework.
Rajasthan: Also chairs a five-member UCC committee constituted by the Rajasthan government.
Chhattisgarh: Now chairs the five-member committee constituted on June 25, 2026.

Connection to this news: Justice Desai's involvement across four states reflects an effort to bring technical consistency to state-level UCC frameworks. Her role also insulates the process from the perception of political partisanship by placing it under a retired judicial figure.

Tribal Rights and the UCC Debate

Scheduled Tribes in India are protected under several constitutional provisions — Articles 244, 275, and the Fifth and Sixth Schedules — that recognise their customary laws, traditions, and autonomy over land, succession, and community governance. UCC implementation that overrides these customary laws would directly conflict with these protective provisions. The Uttarakhand model explicitly exempts Scheduled Tribes; the question is whether this exemption model is constitutionally adequate or whether a UCC that excludes any group contradicts the uniformity its name implies.

Chhattisgarh has a Scheduled Tribe population of approximately 30% — one of the highest proportions among non-North-Eastern states.
The Chhattisgarh Sarva Adivasi Samaj and other tribal bodies have formally protested proposed UCC implementation, citing disruption to customary inheritance, marriage, and land rights.
The Fifth Schedule to the Constitution provides for the administration of "Scheduled Areas" in states like Chhattisgarh, with the Governor empowered to make regulations for tribal welfare.
Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution defines "law" to include "custom or usage having the force of law," recognising customary law as a form of enforceable legal obligation.

Connection to this news: The committee's consultation mandate with tribal communities is significant given Chhattisgarh's demography. Whether the final draft carves out tribal exemptions — as Uttarakhand did — will be a key test of the committee's approach.

Key Facts & Data

Committee constituted: June 25, 2026 (cabinet approval: April 15, 2026).
Chairperson: Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai (retd. Supreme Court Judge); also chairs UCC committees in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.
Committee mandate: marriage, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, adoption, and related personal law matters.
Uttarakhand precedent: Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand Act, 2024; assented to by the President on March 13, 2024; first state UCC in independent India (Goa's code predates Independence).
Uttarakhand UCC exempts Scheduled Tribe members from its provisions.
Article 44 of the Constitution: "The State shall endeavour to secure for citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India" (Directive Principle, Part IV, non-justiciable).
Personal laws fall under Entry 5 of the Concurrent List — both Parliament and states have legislative competence.
Chhattisgarh Scheduled Tribe population: approximately 30% of the state's total population.
Key Supreme Court references on UCC: Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985); Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995); John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003).