India is a country of diversification. Diversification in caste, religion, creed, colour, race, sex, etc., and due to this diversification cultural plurality develops which leads to conflicts, debates, etc., and in order to have an amicable solution various Indian states gave their individual legislations which results in legal pluralism. This diversification leads to pluralistic personal laws which in some case could be justiciable in character or not.

So, in order for all the religion to have the element of justiciability, the concept of Uniform Civil Code (UCC) developed. Article 44 of the Constitution deals with UCC. UCC is enshrined as part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPs). DPs have not given that much accordance as it is given to Fundamental Rights (FRs). The demand of UCC arose significantly after the Triple Talaq judgement came and the current Indian regime also advocates for the same.

It is agreeable that the Hindu personal laws and Muslim personal laws are not infallible and have elements which are patriarchal in nature. Thus, in this article the author will argue that whether having UCC is a solution to all the fallible personal laws in India and if implemented could it cater to all the needs of a pluralistic society like India.

Why the Demand of UCC Arose?

The main reason for the demand of UCC is due the inequality faced by women. In case of Hindu women, there were multiplicity of personal Hindu laws which result in inequality like in property rights. Therefore, they demanded these laws to be reformed and there should exist a uniform law for all Hindus. But due to lack of political will and support none of these demands have been met yet.

Various legislations were introduced to enhance the status of women like Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended in 2005 but they all did not able to give much relief to women.

Muslim law has been taken into consideration here as the major part of people which demanded UCC came from Muslim section. The same could be attributed to many Muslim personal laws which are against women and that's why the demand of reform and abolishment for the same arose. As the practice of Triple Talaq which allowed Muslim men to divorce their wife by uttering the word talaq thrice.

This resulted that divorce in case of Muslim women increased and demand for abolishment of this practice arose which later banned by the Supreme Court (SC) of India in the Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Ors. stating that this practice is violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Other practices like the practice of Polygamy under Muslim personal law which allow Muslim men to have more than one wife. Then the issue of Maintenance is also there in Muslim personal law. Muslim women have a right to maintenance under the Muslim Women Protection Act of 1986. But whether Muslim women can request maintenance under the criminal procedure code was a serious concern.

On this issue, the Shah Bano Begum case has been regarded as the seminal decision. The court ruled that under section 125 of the CrPC, a Muslim woman who has been divorced by her husband is entitled to maintenance from him. She did, however, have the right to request maintenance both during the Iddat period and after it had ended. If UCC implemented then, Marriage as contract will no longer be the case under Muslim personal law.

Muslim law has been taken into consideration here as the major part of people which demanded UCC came from Muslim section. The same could be attributed to many Muslim personal laws which are against women and that's why the demand of reform and abolishment for the same arose. As the practice of Triple Talaq which allowed Muslim men to divorce their wife by uttering the word talaq thrice.

This resulted that divorce in case of Muslim women increased and demand for abolishment of this practice arose which later banned by the Supreme Court (SC) of India in the Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Ors. stating that this practice is violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Other practices like the practice of Polygamy under Muslim personal law which allow Muslim men to have more than one wife. Then the issue of Maintenance is also there in Muslim personal law. Muslim women have a right to maintenance under the Muslim Women Protection Act of 1986.

But whether Muslim women can request maintenance under the criminal procedure code was a serious concern. On this issue, the Shah Bano Begum case has been regarded as the seminal decision. The court ruled that under section 125 of the CrPC, a Muslim woman who has been divorced by her husband is entitled to maintenance from him. She did, however, have the right to request maintenance both during the Iddat period and after it had ended.

Is UCC A Prudent Pursuit?

Despite being a lot of demand for the implementation of UCC, it nevertheless still remains fictitious.

In the case of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begam, the Supreme Court expressed the need for a uniform civil code to promote national integration. However, this was unnecessary as there already existed a provision under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that applied to all regardless of their personal laws. The Court reiterated the need for a common code in cases where Hindu men abandoned their spouses and converted to Islam to practice polygamy, such as in the case of Sarla Mudgal and Kalyani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

However, the Court failed to provide adequate justification for the need for a separate code, given the existing provisions and principles. The Court's observations were flawed, as it demonized Muslims instead of condemning the actions of the men involved in the case. It also disregarded the ideals of legal pluralism by suggesting that converting to Islam was an inducement for Hindu men seeking to practice polygamy.

Also, in the case of ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi), the court reiterated the need for UCC. But this case was w.r.t to a Christian child whose guardianship was unclear. In this case, the court could resolve the issue by clearly interpreting the Guardians and Wards Act without giving adherence to UCC.

These judgments indicate that the courts lack a comprehensive structure for the implementation of UCC and there is no compelling justification to do so. Despite multiple cases citing Article 44 of the Constitution, which mandates UCC, the courts seem to prioritize the absence of such a code rather than addressing the misogynistic and patriarchal nature of personal laws in India. Also, Article 44 does not provide a clear definition of what the UCC should encompass, and even proponents of the code present only a rudimentary outline.

Furthermore, Article 25 of the Constitution confers the right to practice personal laws based on religious origins as a fundamental right, while UCC is only a DPs, which conflicts with this right. The SC has acknowledged the supremacy of fundamental rights over directive principles, in the case of Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, where the court emphasized that undermining fundamental rights to achieve the objectives of directive principles would undermine the basic structure of the Constitution.

Conclusion
In a country like India where there is vast diversification of people following different personal laws and then advocating for a structure which could encompass these numerous personal laws, customs, and traditions would not be a pragmatic solution. Therefore, pluralistic nature of personal laws is of great importance. There is a reason as to why our constitutional forefathers put 'personal law' in the Concurrent List. This allows the States to reform the personal laws which conform to the constitutional standards.

Thus, propounding for a structure which could have a blanket application on people of different sections of the society would not be justifiable. Like different States which time to time amended legislations like Hindu Marriage Act, Motor Vehicles Act, etc., to suit to their needs suggests that a uniform law encompassing all would be incongruous.

There is no hiding from the fact that the personal laws have provisions which are against constitutional principles, but they have to be reformed in a manner which is democratically sound and progressive in nature instead of a structure which blanketly governs a multifaceted society.