Uniform Civil Code - One Nation, One Law - At What Cost

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T21:39:23.488351+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:05:09.64+00:00

UNIFORM CIVIL CODE: ONE NATION, ONE LAW - AT

WHAT COST?

Mr. Shivein Walia

ABSTRACT

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) reliquiae one of the most vexed issues in Indian constitutional discourse. While its exponents argue for national integration, gender justice, and equality before the law, opponents flag an issue about majoritarianism, religious freedom, and the preservation of India's pluralistic identity. This essay explores the historical background of UCC, judicial interventions, feminist and minority perspectives, and the contrasting moral philosophies shaping the debate. By examining the implications of implementing UCC, this piece seeks to question whether the goal of ‘one law’ is truly just, or if it comes at the cost of India's foundational pluralism and constitutional morality.

Introduction: The Legal Faultline Reopened The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has long occupied a controversial space in Indian constitutional discourse since independence. The decade-old debate was reignited as Uttarakhand in January 2025 , became the first Indian state to implement UCC postindependence. Embedded in Article 44 of the directive principles of the state policy, UCC intends to standardize personal laws across religions in matters of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption to proselytize the idea of gender equality and legal uniformity. This recent enactment has transformed this dormant principle into a political and legal battleground. As the central government expresses renewed interest in implementing UCC nationwide, it’s time we ask: Can one law truly fit all in a nation as diverse as India?

Constitutional Intent and Judicial Interventions Article 44 of the Indian constitution directs the state to “endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India. ”1 Nevertheless, it is a directive principle of state policy, not enforceable in court. At the foundational stage of India’s constitutional democracy, the constituent assembly witnessed sharp disagreements on the UCC: Dr. B. R. Ambedkar supported it as essential for national unity, while others feared it would undermine religious freedom. 2 The Judiciary has, time and again, brought this issue back into national discourse. In the landmark Shah Bano Case (1985)3 The Apex court upheld the Muslim woman’s right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal procedure code, beseeching the need for UCC.

Triggering backlash from conservative communities, parliament enacted Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986,4 which curtailed the Court’s judgment. Similar calls for UCC were seen in the Sarla Mudgal case (1995)5 and the Shayara Bano case (2017)6, the latter resulting in the criminalisation of triple talaq. These instances urge us to confront a deeper dilemma: should we be guided by the enduring ideals of constitutional morality or the shifting sands of popular morality?

1 Constitution of India, Article 44

2 Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VII, November 1948.

3 Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, AIR 1985 SC 945.

4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

5 Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 153.

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

Jurisprudential and Philosophical Foundations The UCC debate in India is not merely a political issue for India- it is also deeply rooted in philosophical and jurisprudential tensions. Understanding different schools of thought offers a broader context to why the discourse around Uniformity vs. Diversity remains unresolved. Liberal theory prioritises the individual over the community and emphasises equality before law. From this perspective, the UCC is a means to ensure that citizens — especially women — are protected from discriminatory religious customs. 7 Thinkers like John Stuart Mill and John Locke contend that the State must protect Individual Liberty against traditional structure. The UCC according to this theory becomes an instrument of autonomy and justice. Natural law theory posits that laws must reflect universal moral principles, such as justice and human dignity.

8 Discriminatory practices within personal laws violate these universal ethics. Consequently, UCC ingrained with natural law reasoning, would endeavor to align with the objective standards of fairness rather than subjective religious norms. Whereas feminist legal theory espouses the UCC as a tool to dismantle patriarchal structures existing in personal laws. Scholars like Catharine MacKinnon argue that law must reflect the lived experiences of women, who are often marginalized under religious regimes. 9 In India, Flavia Agnes offers a nuanced view-while being a critique of the imposition of UCC, she also advocates for gender-just reforms within the personal laws, ensuring the voices of marginalized women are not erased in the name of equality. 10 Thinkers like Will Kymlicka and Bhikhu Parekh emphasize that individual rights must be understood in the context of cultural communities.

11 They propound that legal pluralism, where different communities have different personal laws, is not a threat to democracy but a feature of it. Also, the imposition of a uniform civil code without accounting for cultural specificities risks alienating minorities and damaging social cohesion.

7 John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859; John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 1689.

8 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica; Hugo Grotius, On the Law of War and Peace, 1625.

9 Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, Harvard University Press, 1989.

10 Flavia Agnes, “The Supreme Court, Domestic Violence, and the Uniform Civil Code,” Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. 40, No. 48 (2005). 11 Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship, Oxford University Press, 1995; Bhikhu Parekh, Rethinking Multiculturalism, Palgrave Macmillan, 2000.

Advocating Uniformity: Equality, Secularism, and National Interest Personal laws in India often accommodate discriminatory provisions, especially against women. For instance, under some interpretations of Islamic law, daughters receive half the inheritance as compared to sons and polygamy is permissible. 12 Thus, UCC is seen as an effective tool for substantive equality ensuring all citizens of India - regardless of religion - enjoy the same civil rights. India’s model of secularism requires the state to maintain neutrality in religious matters. 13 Nonetheless allowing different personal laws based on religion results in legal fragmentation. Whereas UCC would reinforce that citizenship - not faith - should define one’s civil rights and duties. A common civil code could contribute to national cohesion by enforcing a shared set of norms for all Indians.

Therefore streamlining the legal process makes it more accessible for the citizens across India. Critiques and Counterarguments: The Pluralist Challenge Critics argue that personal laws bespeak not just religious beliefs, but deeply rooted cultural practices. Implementing a UCC without community consent could violate Articles 25-28, which guarantee one’s right to freely profess and practice one’s religion. 14 There is widespread fear, especially among minorities, that a UCC may end up imposing Hindu upper-caste norms under the guise of uniformity. 9 This perception undermines trust and could lead to alienation rather than integration. 15 Many tribal communities follow customary practices that diverge from mainstream Hindu or Muslim laws. These communities view the UCC as an intrusion into their traditional systems of justice.

Even the Uttarakhand UCC exempts Scheduled Tribes, implicitly acknowledging this complexity. 16 The 21st Law Commission (2018), after extensive consultations, concluded that a UCC was “neither necessary nor desirable at this stage” and recommended reform within personal laws instead. 17 The Middle Path: Justice Through Gradual Reform Instead of imposing a sweeping, centralised code many scholars and jurists proselytize for a 12 Flavia Agnes, Law and Gender Inequality: The Politics of Women’s Rights in India, Oxford University Press, 2001.

13 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918.

14 Constitution of India, Articles 25–28.

15 Rajeev Dhavan, “The Myth of the Uniform Civil Code,” Seminar, No. 459 (1997).

16 The Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code Bill, 2024.

17 Law Commission of India, Consultation Paper on Reform of Family Law, August 2018.

rather phased ,consultative approach. Reform within existing personal laws — especially where gender discrimination is evident — can lay the groundwork for eventual convergence. 18 The aim should not be to erase diversity, but to harmonise personal laws with constitutional values. Legal pluralism, when managed with transparency and equity, can coexist with national unity. As Justice R. F. Nariman aptly noted, “A secular state must ensure that laws are neutral and not tilted in favour of any one religion or community. ”19 Conclusion The idea of a Uniform Civil Code, in its best form, is rooted in noble constitutional goals — gender justice, national integration, and legal clarity. However, any attempt to implement it must be grounded in inclusivity, caution, and respect for India’s multicultural reality.

If uniformity becomes an instrument of dominance rather than justice, the very fabric of Indian democracy may be at risk. The challenge lies not in rejecting the idea of a UCC, but in shaping it through public dialogue, cultural sensitivity, and legal integrity. In a country as diverse as India, the true measure of a Uniform Civil Code will not lie in how identical the laws are — but in how just, representative, and empathetic they prove to be. India is a land of many truths — many customs, many faiths, many families. A Uniform Civil Code, if implemented wisely, can be a tool for justice. But if rushed or politically weaponised, it could deepen divisions rather than heal them. So we must ask: Is it truly justice if equality is enforced without empathy? Disclaimer: This article reflects the author’s personal interpretation of legal and philosophical ideas.

All court cases, theories, and quotes have been referenced or paraphrased in good faith for educational purposes. The content is original work of the author unless otherwise stated.

18 Faizan Mustafa, “Don’t Impose, Reform Personal Laws,” The Indian Express, July 2023.

19 Justice R.F. Nariman, Speech at 17th Justice K.T. Desai Memorial Lecture, 2021.