Madhya Pradesh Assembly passes UCC Bill, Congress slams ‘RSS agenda’
The Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly passed the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill, 2026 during the Monsoon Session, after the bill was tabled and cleared by the state cabinet.
The legislation establishes a common civil law framework covering marriage, divorce, live-in relationships, and inheritance, replacing religion-based personal laws for matters within its scope.
Key provisions include a complete ban on polygamy, triple talaq, and nikah halala; mandatory registration of all marriages, divorces, and live-in relationships; and a uniform minimum marriage age of 21 for men and 18 for women.
Inheritance provisions grant equal rights to widows and widowers, and equal inheritance status to children born of marriage, live-in relationships, adoption, and surrogacy.
Scheduled Tribes and Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs), roughly 21% of the state's population, have been excluded from the Bill's scope to protect their customary practices.
With this move, Madhya Pradesh becomes the fourth state to enact a UCC through fresh legislation, following Uttarakhand (2024), Gujarat (March 2026), and Assam (May 2026); Goa has had a pre-existing civil code inherited from the Portuguese era.
The Bill's passage in the Assembly saw procedural disruptions, with opposition members seeking referral to a Select Committee before the vote.
Article 44 and the Uniform Civil Code (Directive Principles of State Policy)
Article 44 falls under Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) of the Constitution and states: "The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India." Being a DPSP, it is not justiciable (not enforceable in a court of law under Article 37) but is considered fundamental to governance, meant to guide state policy toward eventual harmonisation of personal laws across religions in matters of marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, and maintenance.
Key Details
- Article 44 is placed in Part IV (Articles 36-51), which lays down DPSPs — non-justiciable but fundamental in governance per Article 37.
- The idea traces to the Constituent Assembly debates, where it was a compromise given divergent personal law traditions; it was not made a Fundamental Right.
- UCC aims to replace codified/uncodified personal laws (Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Parsi) governing marriage, divorce, succession, and adoption with one common code applicable to all citizens.
Madhya Pradesh's Bill is a state-level legislative attempt to give effect to the Article 44 directive, following the precedent set by Uttarakhand, Gujarat, and Assam, making it a recurring current-affairs hook for questions on DPSP implementation.
Federalism and Legislative Competence: Concurrent List, Entry 5
"Marriage and divorce; infants and minors; adoption; wills, intestacy and succession; joint family and partition" fall under Entry 5 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule, meaning both Parliament and State Legislatures can legislate on these subjects. Where a state law conflicts with a central law on the same Concurrent List entry, the central law prevails (Article 254), unless the state law has received Presidential assent.
Key Details
- Entry 5, List III, Seventh Schedule covers marriage, divorce, adoption, succession, and personal-law-related judicial matters — the constitutional basis enabling states like Madhya Pradesh to legislate a UCC.
- Article 254 governs repugnancy between central and state laws on Concurrent List subjects; state law can prevail in that state only if it received Presidential assent and does not conflict with a later central law.
- Existing personal law statutes (e.g., Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1937) were themselves enacted under this same Concurrent List entry.
Because marriage and divorce are Concurrent List subjects, Madhya Pradesh (like Uttarakhand, Gujarat, and Assam before it) is constitutionally competent to enact its own UCC legislation even in the absence of a central UCC law — explaining why UCC implementation in India is currently proceeding state-by-state rather than nationally.
Freedom of Religion (Articles 25-26) versus UCC
Articles 25 and 26 guarantee freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion, and the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion, subject to public order, morality, health, and other Fundamental Rights. Courts have held that reasonable regulation of secular activities associated with religious practice (such as personal law matters like marriage and inheritance) does not violate Articles 25-26, since personal law is not treated as an essential religious practice in itself for constitutional purposes when the state legislates a uniform code.
Key Details
- Article 25 protects individual freedom of religion, subject to Article 25(2), which allows the state to regulate secular activities associated with religious practice and to provide for social welfare and reform.
- Article 26 protects the right of religious denominations to manage their own religious affairs, subject to public order, morality, and health.
- The Supreme Court in Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995) held that conversion to another religion solely to circumvent bigamy provisions and contract a second marriage does not dissolve the first marriage under Hindu law, and reiterated the need for a UCC to end conflicting personal-law obligations.
The Madhya Pradesh UCC Bill's provisions banning polygamy, triple talaq, and nikah halala directly engage the Article 25-26 versus Article 44 debate — the state justifies the law as secular social-welfare regulation under Article 25(2), a tension that has repeatedly been tested before courts and is a recurring UPSC Mains theme.
Landmark Case: Shah Bano (1985) and the Uniform Civil Code Debate
In Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985), the Supreme Court upheld a divorced Muslim woman's right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and observed that a common civil code would help national integration by removing conflicting personal-law loyalties. The judgment triggered significant political and legal debate, leading Parliament to enact the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which modified the scope of maintenance claims for Muslim women.
Key Details
- Case: Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) — Supreme Court, Section 125 CrPC maintenance claim.
- Outcome: Court affirmed maintenance rights, obiter dicta observed the desirability of a UCC under Article 44.
- Legislative response: Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, narrowed the maintenance provision's application to Muslim women.
Shah Bano remains the foundational case cited whenever UCC legislation (like Madhya Pradesh's 2026 Bill) is introduced, as it established the judiciary's early endorsement of Article 44 as a tool for gender-just, uniform personal law.
- Madhya Pradesh is the fourth state to pass fresh UCC legislation, after Uttarakhand (February 2024), Gujarat (March 2026), and Assam (May 2026); Goa's civil code predates independence (Portuguese Civil Code, 1867).
- Minimum marriage age under the MP Bill: 21 years (men), 18 years (women).
- Live-in relationship registration is mandatory; non-registration can attract up to 3 months' imprisonment or a fine; a married person entering a live-in relationship faces up to 5 years' imprisonment.
- Scheduled Tribes and PVTGs, about 21% of Madhya Pradesh's population, are excluded from the Bill's ambit.
- Article 44 (DPSP) and Entry 5, Concurrent List, Seventh Schedule are the two constitutional provisions most relevant to state-level UCC legislation.