Bivash Modi
(modi.bivash@yahoo.in)
The debate around the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has once again returned to the centre of India’s public discourse. With Assam recently adopting a new UCC framework in the Assembly, discussions are no longer confined to courtrooms or constitutional seminars. The issue now touches everyday life — marriage, divorce, inheritance, women’s rights and social reform. At its core, the Uniform Civil Code seeks to create a common set of civil laws governing marriage, divorce, adoption, maintenance and inheritance for all citizens, irrespective of religion. The idea is neither new nor sudden. It has been part of India’s constitutional imagination since independence.
Yet, in a civilisation as old and diverse as India, the conversation around UCC cannot be reduced to a simple slogan of “one nation, one law”. It is deeply connected to India’s cultural plurality, constitutional morality and the gradual evolution of social reform. It is pertinent to discuss India’s civilisational character and the UCC debate – India has always been a land of multiple customs, traditions and community practices. From the Vedic age to the Bhakti movement, from tribal customary systems to regional cultural traditions, diversity has remained India’s defining feature. Even during ancient times, local customs often coexisted with broader principles of justice and ethics. Different communities followed different family laws, inheritance systems and marriage customs. India’s civilisation survived not by uniformity, but by accommodation.
This historical reality was well understood by the framers of the Constitution. Dr B.R. Ambedkar, while supporting the idea of a Uniform Civil Code in the Constituent Assembly, also recognised the sensitivity involved. He famously observed that no government should impose such a code in a manner that ignores social realities. For Ambedkar, the ultimate aim was social reform and gender justice, not coercive uniformity. K.M. Munshi strongly defended the inclusion of UCC in the Constitution, arguing that a modern nation could not indefinitely remain divided by separate personal laws. Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar also believed that civil laws should gradually move towards common constitutional principles. At the same time, several members from minority communities expressed fears that sudden uniformity might affect cultural autonomy and religious freedom. The framers therefore adopted a balanced approach.
The constitutional position on the Uniform Civil Code is very clear. The Indian Constitution does not impose an immediate Uniform Civil Code. Instead, Article 44 under the Directive Principles of State Policy states:
“The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India.”
This wording is significant. The Constitution speaks of an “endeavour”. The directive principles are non-justiciable, meaning they are guiding principles for governance.
At the same time, the Constitution also guarantees freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26. Thus, India’s constitutional framework attempts to maintain a balance between social reform and cultural freedom. The larger constitutional vision is therefore not about erasing diversity, but about ensuring equality, dignity and justice within that diversity. With the efflux of time Supreme Court judgements have been shaping the path towards the adoption of the UCC. Over the decades, the Supreme Court has repeatedly highlighted the importance of a Uniform Civil Code, particularly in matters concerning women’s rights and equality before law.
In the landmark Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum (1985) case, the court upheld the right of a divorced Muslim woman to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Justice Y.V. Chandrachud observed that a common civil code would help promote national integration. Later, in the Sarla Mudgal (1995) judgement, the Court dealt with cases where Hindu men converted to Islam solely to contract second marriages without dissolving their first marriage. The Court strongly criticised misuse of personal laws and again emphasised the need for a UCC. In John Vallamattom vs Union of India (2003), the Supreme Court struck down discriminatory provisions affecting Christians in matters of property donation and reiterated the importance of legal uniformity. More recently, in the Shayara Bano (2017) case, the Court invalidated instant triple talaq, calling it unconstitutional and arbitrary. The verdict strengthened the principle that personal laws cannot violate constitutional morality and gender justice. Together, these rulings have gradually paved the way for reforms in personal laws while reinforcing constitutional values. In the last few decades Assam has witnessed the changing social landscape that called for immediate political and legislative intervention. Further in Assam, the debate around UCC carries unique social and demographic dimensions. The state has witnessed growing concern over child marriage, polygamy and the unequal position of women in certain customary practices. The Assam government has already taken strong measures against child marriage through legal enforcement and awareness campaigns. A broader UCC framework may further strengthen efforts to ensure minimum legal age of marriage across communities and protect young girls from exploitation.
The issue of multiple marriages has also remained sensitive. While polygamy is prohibited under Hindu law, Muslim personal law historically permitted polygamy under specific conditions. However, critics argue that in modern democratic society, equal rights and gender justice require a uniform standard. Similarly, questions relating to divorce and inheritance continue to generate debate. Different personal laws presently govern succession rights and marital disputes. Supporters of UCC believe a common framework may reduce legal complexity and ensure greater equality for women across communities. However, Assam’s social structure also includes a large tribal population with distinct customary systems and cultural traditions. Recognising this reality, the newly adopted framework reportedly keeps tribal communities outside the purview of the new UCC provisions. This approach reflects constitutional sensitivity. The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution itself provides special protections to tribal communities in the Northeast. Preserving tribal customs while pursuing broader legal reform demonstrates an attempt to balance constitutional commitment with cultural diversity. The Assam government deserves appreciation for retaining this constitutional balance rather than adopting a rigid one-size-fits-all approach. The success of any uniform civil code will ultimately depend not on legislative speed but on social trust. In a country as diverse as India, reform must emerge through dialogue, gradual consensus and constitutional wisdom.
The true spirit of the Constitution lies in ensuring dignity for women, equality before law and protection of vulnerable citizens while respecting India’s plural identity. India’s strength has always been its ability to harmonise diversity with unity. As Assam moves forward in this sensitive journey, the challenge will be to uphold both constitutional morality and civilisational wisdom.
Like the mighty Brahmaputra flowing across changing landscapes while carrying countless streams within it, Assam must move towards justice without losing the richness of its diversity. And beneath the silent blue hills of Assam, the dream of a uniform civil code may find its true meaning — not in uniformity alone, but in fairness, balance and shared constitutional belonging.