Uniform Civil Code: Balancing Equality and Religious Freedom

Authored By: Nishu Singh

Meerut college, Chaudhary charan Singh University

Abstract

The debate surrounding the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) remains one of the most enduring constitutional questions in India—how to reconcile individual equality with collective religious freedom. Rooted in Article 44 of the Constitution of India, the UCC aspires to replace diverse personal laws with a single secular framework governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption. However, more than seven decades after independence, the UCC remains largely aspirational, hindered by political sensitivities, religious pluralism, and constitutional concerns.

This article provides an analytical examination of the UCC, exploring its historical development, judicial interpretation, and its relationship with fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 21, and 25. It analyzes landmark judgments such as Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556; Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 635; and Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1, highlighting the judiciary’s progressive push toward gender equality and uniformity in personal laws. The paper further evaluates the 2024 Uttarakhand UCC Bill as a test case in India’s constitutional journey and concludes by reflecting upon Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s vision of achieving equality through gradual reform consistent with constitutional morality.

Introduction

India’s personal laws are deeply intertwined with religion, governing key aspects of civil life such as marriage, maintenance, divorce, adoption, and inheritance. Article 44 of the Directive Principles of State Policy envisions a Uniform Civil Code that would apply equally to all citizens, regardless of faith, to ensure equality before law. However, this ideal often clashes with Articles 25 and 26, which guarantee freedom of religion and the autonomy of religious denominations.

The tension between the UCC and religious freedom has long been a constitutional paradox. The judiciary has frequently revived this debate through cases such as Shah Bano (1985), Sarla Mudgal (1995), and Shayara Bano (2017), where courts emphasized gender justice and equality, while successive governments have remained cautious due to political and social sensitivities.

In recent years, the debate has regained prominence following the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code Bill, 2024, the first concrete legislative attempt to codify a state-level UCC. This development raises new constitutional questions concerning federalism, secularism, and the limits of legislative competence. Against this background, the article critically analyzes whether the UCC harmonizes with India’s constitutional ethos or risks disturbing its pluralistic fabric.

Current Status

As of 2025, India does not have a national Uniform Civil Code. Personal laws continue to be governed by religious identities. The major legal frameworks include the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Hindu Succession Act, 1956; Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937; Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872; Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936; and the Special Marriage Act, 1954.

The Hindu Code Bills, originally drafted under the supervision of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, brought significant reforms, including legalizing divorce and prohibiting polygamy, though strong opposition led to the passage of diluted versions through separate acts. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 further strengthened gender equality by granting daughters equal coparcenary rights.

The Special Marriage Act, 1954 enables civil marriages outside religious personal law, representing a voluntary version of the UCC. Conversely, Muslim, Christian, and Parsi communities continue to follow their respective religious laws.

Goa remains the only state with a uniform civil code derived from Portuguese law. Recently, the Uttarakhand UCC Bill, 2024 proposed uniform regulations for marriage, divorce, inheritance, and live-in relationships. The Law Commission’s 2023 consultation paper recommended that such reforms be gradual and based on consensus rather than coercion—emphasizing that uniformity must not come at the cost of social harmony.

Why Uniform Civil Code?

The UCC seeks to achieve three interrelated constitutional objectives:

Gender Justice: To remove discriminatory practices within personal laws that undermine women’s rights, such as unequal divorce or inheritance provisions.
Equality Before Law: To ensure that all citizens are governed by the same set of civil laws, fulfilling the mandate of Article 14.
National Integration: To promote unity in diversity through a secular legal framework that upholds constitutional morality over religious dogma.

Thus, the UCC aims not to erase religious identity but to harmonize it under a common legal umbrella, ensuring that constitutional values of justice, liberty, and equality are upheld in private and public life alike.

Case Laws

1. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556.

The Supreme Court held that a Muslim woman was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applicable to all citizens irrespective of religion. The Court urged the government to implement a UCC to ensure gender equality. The decision sparked controversy and led to the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which effectively reversed the judgment.

Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 635.

The Court addressed the issue of Hindu men converting to Islam to marry again without dissolving their first marriage. It ruled that such conversions were invalid and that a second marriage would amount to bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment reaffirmed that a UCC was essential to promote national unity and prevent misuse of religion.

Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.

The Court struck down the practice of instant triple talaq as unconstitutional, holding it violated Articles 14 and 21. The decision reflected the judiciary’s growing commitment to gender justice and constitutional morality over personal law practices.

Together, these cases underscore the judiciary’s consistent efforts to balance religious freedom with individual rights, moving India gradually toward the vision of a UCC.

Gender Justice and Personal Law Reforms

Personal laws have historically perpetuated gender inequality. For instance, Hindu and Muslim inheritance laws often favored male heirs, and divorce rights were unequally distributed. The UCC seeks to rectify such systemic biases by ensuring substantive equality.

In Shayara Bano (2017), the Court emphasized that gender justice is intrinsic to the Constitution’s guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 15. Similarly, in Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39, the Supreme Court struck down the adultery law (Section 497 IPC) as unconstitutional, reaffirming that equality and dignity are fundamental to marital relationships.

The move toward uniformity is also supported by India’s international obligations, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which calls for equal treatment in marriage and family relations. The UCC would, therefore, not only serve domestic constitutional goals but also reinforce India’s global commitments to gender equality and human rights.

The Federal and Secular Dimensions

Federal Aspect: Family law falls under Entry 5 of the Concurrent List, allowing both Parliament and state legislatures to enact laws. The Uttarakhand UCC Bill, 2024, therefore, represents an exercise of state legislative competence. However, it also raises questions about whether fragmented state-level codes might undermine the idea of national uniformity. A coordinated federal approach—balancing local sensitivities with national objectives—is essential for successful implementation.
Secular Aspect: In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1, the Supreme Court declared secularism to be a basic feature of the Constitution. A genuine UCC must therefore embody secularism not by erasing religious diversity but by treating all faiths equally before law. The challenge lies in creating a civil code that promotes equality without privileging the norms of the majority community.

Fundamental Rights and Constitutionality

Critics argue that the UCC infringes upon Article 25, which guarantees the freedom of religion. However, this right is expressly subject to “public order, morality, and health.” In Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615, the Court clarified that religious freedom is not absolute and can be limited by constitutional values.

Moreover, personal law practices that violate fundamental rights are not protected under Article 25. The Supreme Court’s reasoning in Shayara Bano and Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1 (Sabarimala case), shows that practices contrary to gender equality and human dignity cannot claim constitutional immunity.

Thus, a well-drafted UCC would not contradict the Constitution but would fulfill its spirit by ensuring equality (Article 14), freedom from discrimination (Article 15), and protection of personal liberty (Article 21).

Comparative Study

Goa: Goa’s common civil code, inherited from Portuguese law, provides a successful domestic model where uniform family laws operate across communities. It ensures equal inheritance rights and mandates registration of marriages, reflecting secular governance in a pluralistic setting.
Turkey: Adopted a secular civil code in 1926, replacing Sharia-based family law with Swiss civil law principles. The transition promoted women’s rights but required strong state intervention and gradual social acceptance.
France: Implemented a uniform civil law system under the Napoleonic Code, ensuring equal civil rights regardless of religion or gender.

India’s context, however, is distinct — its pluralism demands that reform must arise from social consensus rather than state imposition. A flexible and inclusive model, integrating core principles of equality while respecting diversity, would be the most sustainable approach.

Conclusion — Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s Thoughts

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, as the chief architect of the Indian Constitution, viewed the Uniform Civil Code as a crucial instrument for achieving social reform and gender equality. During the Constituent Assembly Debates, he stated that while the State should endeavor to secure a UCC, implementation should be gradual and guided by persuasion, not coercion. He emphasized that religious freedom must not extend to perpetuating inequality or injustice within the private sphere.

Ambedkar’s vision was clear — the UCC should be an expression of constitutional morality, ensuring that equality and liberty prevail over patriarchal and religious constraints. He believed that reforming personal laws was not an attack on religion but a step toward social justice and modern nationhood.

In contemporary India, his ideas remain profoundly relevant. The UCC represents both an opportunity and a challenge — an opportunity to realize gender justice and equality, and a challenge to maintain the delicate balance between secularism and pluralism. A successful UCC must, therefore, evolve through democratic dialogue, ensuring that India’s diversity becomes its strength, not its division.

Reference(S):