JDU to meet Amit Shah on UCC; Chirag Paswan seeks stakeholder views
Coalition partners within the Union government have sought consultations on the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), urging that the process include wider stakeholder engagement before implementation, rather than a rapid rollout.
Several state governments are pursuing UCC implementation through state-specific legislation rather than waiting for a single central law, following the precedent set when Uttarakhand became the first state to bring a UCC into force (rules notified January 27, 2025, under the Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand Act, 2024).
The Union Home Ministry has indicated an intent to approach UCC implementation on a state-by-state basis, citing India's diverse social and religious structures across states, rather than pursuing a uniform national rollout in one step.
Discussions on the scope, timeline, and stakeholder consultation process for UCC implementation are ongoing among coalition partners.
Article 44 — Uniform Civil Code as a Directive Principle
Article 44 falls under Part IV of the Constitution (Directive Principles of State Policy, Articles 36-51) and reads: "The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India." A UCC would replace religion-specific personal laws (governing marriage, divorce, adoption, succession, and maintenance) with a single common code applicable to all citizens irrespective of religion. Like all DPSPs, Article 44 is not enforceable in any court (Article 37) — it functions as a governance goal rather than a justiciable right, meaning citizens cannot approach courts to compel the State to enact a UCC.
The current debate is fundamentally about how — and how fast — the State should "endeavour" to fulfil Article 44, with different states now attempting this endeavour independently rather than waiting for Parliament to legislate a single central UCC.
Landmark Supreme Court Cases Urging a UCC
The Supreme Court has, in several judgments spanning four decades, urged the government to move toward a Uniform Civil Code, without itself having the power to enact one. Key cases include Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) — where the Court, while granting maintenance to a divorced Muslim woman under Section 125 CrPC, observed that a common civil code would help national integration; Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995) — which held that a Hindu husband converting to Islam to contract a second marriage without dissolving the first was guilty of bigamy, and again urged UCC enactment; and Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) — which struck down instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) as unconstitutional, though decided primarily on Article 14 (equality) and Article 21 (dignity) grounds rather than directly enforcing Article 44.
Key Details
- Shah Bano (1985) led to significant political controversy and the subsequent Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986
- Sarla Mudgal (1995) is frequently cited for its bigamy/conversion holding under Section 494 IPC (now Section 82, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023)
- Shayara Bano (2017) led to the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, criminalising instant triple talaq
- Jose Paulo Coutinho v. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira (2019) referred to Goa's civil code as a model UCC "worth emulating"
These rulings form the judicial backdrop cited whenever UCC implementation is proposed — while none directly compel the State to legislate, they collectively signal judicial sympathy for the Article 44 goal, distinguishing this from cases addressing individual rights violations under Part III.
Legislative Competence — Why States Can Enact Their Own UCC
Marriage, divorce, adoption, succession, and related personal-law matters fall under Entry 5 of the Concurrent List (List III, Seventh Schedule), meaning both Parliament and State Legislatures have the constitutional competence to legislate on them. This is the basis on which individual states (beginning with Uttarakhand) have been able to enact their own state-level UCC laws without waiting for a central UCC Bill in Parliament.
The state-by-state implementation approach referenced in current developments relies directly on this Concurrent List competence — states are not waiting for a central UCC Bill because they are independently empowered to legislate on these subjects already.
Article 25-26 (Freedom of Religion) vs Article 44 — The Core Constitutional Tension
Articles 25 and 26 (Part III, Fundamental Rights) guarantee freedom of conscience and the right to practise, profess, and propagate religion, and the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs in matters of religion — subject to public order, morality, and health, and to other Fundamental Rights. Personal laws governing marriage and inheritance are often defended as an aspect of religious practice under Articles 25-26, creating a constitutional tension with the Article 44 goal of a common code. Courts have generally held that "secular" activities associated with religious practice (such as the civil aspects of marriage and succession) can be regulated by the State even under Articles 25-26, since these articles permit State regulation of secular activity associated with religious practice.
Key Details
- Article 25(2)(a) explicitly allows the State to regulate or restrict any "economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice"
- Article 26 protects a religious denomination's right to manage its own affairs "in matters of religion" only — not all civil/secular matters
- The tension is compounded by Article 29 (protection of distinct culture of minorities) and Article 366(25) read with the Fifth/Sixth Schedules protecting tribal customary practices
Calls for wider stakeholder consultation before UCC implementation reflect exactly this constitutional balancing exercise — between the Article 44 directive and the Article 25-26 fundamental rights of religious and tribal communities, which is why consultation processes are considered procedurally significant rather than a mere delay tactic.
- Article 44: Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy), non-justiciable per Article 37
- Uttarakhand UCC: passed by state legislature February 7, 2024; presidential assent March 13, 2024; rules notified and law came into force January 27, 2025 — first state to implement a UCC post-independence
- Uttarakhand UCC excludes Scheduled Tribes from its application
- Goa: only state with a pre-existing common civil code, inherited from the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867
- Marriage, divorce, adoption, succession: Entry 5, Concurrent List (List III), Seventh Schedule
- Key SC cases: Shah Bano (1985), Sarla Mudgal (1995), Shayara Bano (2017 — struck down instant triple talaq), Jose Paulo Coutinho (2019)
- Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019: criminalised instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) following Shayara Bano