The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India is a proposed legal framework intended to replace the personal laws associated with different religions, establishing a single set of laws applicable to all citizens. These personal laws currently address matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, and maintenance.

The concept of a UCC is included in Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, which asserts that the state shall strive to provide a uniform civil code for all citizens across India. However, the implementation of such a code is not obligatory and exists within the Directive Principles of State Policy, which serve as guiding principles for lawmaking by the government.

The discussion surrounding the UCC has persisted for many years. Proponents argue that it fosters equality and secularism, whereas critics contend that it diminishes minority rights and religious customs. The UCC has sparked significant debate in Indian politics, with various political parties and organizations expressing differing views on its enactment.

Historical Background

• Hindu Code Bill and addition to the Directive Principles

  During the sessions of the Indian Parliament from 1948 to 1951 and from 1951 to 1954, the report of the Hindu law committee was discussed. The first Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, along with his supporters and female members, advocated for the establishment of a uniform civil code. B. R. Ambedkar, serving as the Law Minister, was responsible for presenting the specifics of this legislation.
  
  It was determined that traditional Hindu laws were limited to a particular school and tradition, as texts known as Shastras included aspects like monogamy, divorce, and the right of widows to inherit property. Ambedkar recommended a Civil Code inspired by Western principles. His consistent criticism of Hindu laws and disdain for the upper castes made him unpopular among parliamentarians. He conducted research on religious scriptures and viewed the structure of Hindu society as severely flawed. He believed that reforming the law was essential for its salvation, and the Code bill represented this chance. As a result, he encountered significant backlash from the opposition.
  
  Although Nehru later endorsed Ambedkar's reforms, he did not agree with Ambedkar's unfavourable perspective on Hindu society. The Hindu bill itself faced considerable opposition, particularly concerning its provisions on monogamy, divorce, the abolition of coparcenaries (women's rights to inherit shared titles), and inheritance rights for daughters.
  
  The first President of India, Rajendra Prasad, was against these reforms; other dissenters included the Congress party president Vallabhbhai Patel, several senior figures, and Hindu fundamentalists within the Indian National Congress. In a notable political shift, the female members of parliament, who had earlier supported the bill, changed their stance and endorsed the Hindu law reform; they were concerned that allying with the fundamentalists could lead to further setbacks in their rights.
  
  In 1956, a scaled-down version of this legislation was enacted by the parliament through four distinct acts: The Hindu Marriage Act, The Succession Act, The Minority and Guardianship Act, and The Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The incorporation of a uniform civil code into Article 44 of the Directive Principles of the Constitution was established, stating, "The State shall endeavour to secure for citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India."
  
  Women representatives, such as Rajkumari Amrit Kaur and Hansa Mehta, voiced their opposition to this initiative. Academic Paula Banerjee suggests that this decision was intended to ensure it would not be addressed. Aparna Mahanta notes, "the Indian state's inability to establish a uniform civil code, in line with its democratic, secular, and socialist commitments, further highlights the modern state's alignment with the traditional interests of a patriarchal society."
   

• Special Marriage Act, 1954

  The Special Marriage Act of 1954 offers a civil marriage option to any citizen, regardless of their religion, enabling any Indian to marry outside the specific confines of religious personal laws. This law was applicable throughout India, except for Jammu and Kashmir. In many ways, the act was nearly identical to the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, which illustrates the extent to which marriage laws for Hindus had become secularized.
  
  The Special Marriage Act permitted Muslims to marry under its provisions, allowing them to benefit from protections typically advantageous to Muslim women that are absent in personal law. This act prohibited polygamy and matters of inheritance and succession were regulated by the Indian Succession Act instead of the respective Muslim Personal Law. Furthermore, divorce procedures were subject to secular law, and support for a divorced wife was determined according to civil law standards.
   

• Shah Bano Case

  Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano &Ors 1985 AIR 945, 1985 SCR (3) 844
  Brief: A 73-year-old woman named Shah Bano was divorced by her husband through the practice of triple talaq, wherein he stated "I divorce thee" three times, and she was refused maintenance. She sought legal remedy, and both the District Court and the High Court ruled in her favour. This prompted her husband to appeal to the Supreme Court, claiming that he had met all his responsibilities according to Islamic law.
  
  Ruling: In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled in her favour, citing the "maintenance of wives, children and parents" clause (Section 125) of the All-India Criminal Code, which was applicable to all citizens regardless of their religion. Additionally, it suggested the establishment of a uniform civil code.

Meaning Of Uniform Civil Code

A Uniform Civil Code (UCC) refers to the initiative to replace the personal laws that vary according to the scriptures and traditions of each significant religious community in India with a universal set of regulations applicable to all citizens. These regulations would address matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption.

The purpose of a UCC is to establish equal laws for all individuals, regardless of their religion, gender, or caste. It aims to foster national unity and integration by ensuring that everyone is treated fairly under the same legal framework.

They address topics such as marriage, divorce, alimony, inheritance, adoption, and property succession. The foundation of this is the idea that, in contemporary society, law and religion are not linked.

What is article 44 of the Indian Constitution?

Article 44 is a Directive Principle of State Policy, indicating that it acts as a guiding principle for the government, although it has no legal enforceability.

Article 44 of the Constitution of India stipulates that the government should strive to establish a uniform civil code (UCC) applicable to all citizens of India.

Nonetheless, Article 37 of the Constitution explicitly states that the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) "shall not be enforceable by any court." Nevertheless, they are regarded as "essential for the administration of the nation." This indicates that although our constitution recognizes the significance of enacting a Uniform Civil Code to some extent, it does not make such enactment mandatory.

Goa And Uniform Civil Code
Goa is the only state in India where a version of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is implemented. This means that individuals of all faiths in Goa are governed by the same regulations regarding marriage, divorce, and inheritance. The UCC in Goa is based on the Portuguese Civil Code established in 1867. The Goa, Daman and Diu Administration Act of 1962, enacted after Goa joined India as a Union Territory in 1961, allowed it to keep the civil code from the Portuguese period.

In 1867, Portugal introduced a civil code, which was later extended to its overseas territories, including Goa, in 1869. This law requires that all marriages be documented with a civil authority and ensures that the wife is granted equal rights as an inheritor, entitled to half of the "common assets," which includes anything inherited by her husband in case of a divorce, unless a prenuptial agreement states otherwise. Furthermore, it mandates that parents must distribute at least half of their estate to their children, including daughters.

The Portuguese Civil Code in Goa was upheld in India through Section 5(1) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Administration Act of 1962. This legislation stated that "all laws that were valid just before the designated date (the date Goa achieved independence on December 19, 1961) in Goa, Daman, and Diu or any portion of those territories shall continue to be in force until modified or repealed by a relevant legislative body or authority." Consequently, the Portuguese civil code remains applicable in Goa, even though it has been replaced in Portugal by a more contemporary civil code enacted in 1966.

Uttarakhand And Uniform Civil Code
The Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly has enacted the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) of Uttarakhand Bill, 2024, with the aim of unifying laws governing marriage and property inheritance. The Bill is now pending the President's approval to become law. However, a troubling aspect of the Bill is its requirement for mandatory registration of live-in relationships, which would criminalize such arrangements if specific conditions are not satisfied.

The UCC Bill, 2024 is designed to promote gender equality by ensuring that men and women are treated the same regarding issues like marriage and inheritance. The Code is also expected to provide Muslim women with an equal share of property, increasing it from the current 25% allowance set by Muslim personal laws.

Scheduled tribes (STs) are excluded from the bill's provisions. The approximately 3% tribal population in the state has expressed opposition to the UCC, citing the special status granted to them.

Concerns include the decision to keep the minimum marriage age unchanged, which is 18 for women and 21 for men. A contentious aspect of the Bill is the compulsory registration of live-in relationships, along with criminal penalties if specific criteria are not met. This requirement could empower the state excessively to penalize consensual relationships and undermine personal autonomy.

Positive Side Of UCC:

• Equality and Justice: UCC promotes equality and justice by ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly under the law, irrespective of their religion, gender, or caste. This can aid in the eradication of discrimination and the advancement of social justice.
• National Integration: A common legal framework can strengthen national integration by providing a unified set of laws for all, thereby helping to minimize communal discord.
• Simplified Legal System: Implementing a UCC would streamline the intricate legal system that currently exists due to the diverse personal laws of various communities, making legal proceedings more straightforward and accessible.
• Empowerment of Women: The UCC can contribute to the empowerment of women by guaranteeing equal rights in areas such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption, which are frequently influenced by patriarchal norms in personal laws.
   

Negative Impact:

• Cultural Sensitivity: India boasts a rich tapestry of cultures and religions. The introduction of UCC might be perceived as infringing upon the cultural and religious traditions of some communities, potentially sparking resistance and unrest.
• Religious Freedom: Personal laws are often deeply intertwined with religious convictions. UCC could be viewed as a violation of the religious liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, which may lead to conflicts.
• Implementation Challenges: Creating a Uniform Civil Code that considers the diverse requirements and sensitivities of all communities is a challenging endeavour. Ensuring that it is equitable and acceptable to everyone presents a significant obstacle.
• Political Opposition: The issue of UCC is highly charged politically, and efforts to implement it may encounter substantial resistance from political parties and groups that regard it as a threat to their interests.

Danial Latifi V. Union Of India Air 2001 Sc 3958

Facts

• The issue stems from the aftermath of the contentious ruling in Mohammad Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985).
• In response to the Shah Bano case, the Indian government introduced the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, aiming to secure maintenance rights for divorced Muslim women.
• Danial Latifi, who represented Shah Bano, contested the constitutional legitimacy of the Act on several grounds, especially its alignment with Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
• The main argument revolved around whether Muslim women had the right to maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, extending beyond the iddat period.

Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The Court interpreted Section 3(1)(a) of the Act to indicate that a Muslim husband's duty to support his wife financially continues beyond the iddat period. If the husband does not make adequate and fair arrangements for maintenance during the iddat period, the wife is entitled to seek maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Case: Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995)

Facts

• Petitions were submitted to the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Sarla Mudgal, president of an NGO called Kalyani, focuses on assisting women in distress. Meena Mathur, who married Jitender Mathur in 1978, discovered that her husband had taken another wife named Sunita Narula, also known as Fathima. The petitioner later found out that both Jitender Mathur and Fathima converted to Islam prior to their marriage. Fathima argued that their conversion to Islam and adopting the Muslim faith was motivated by their desire to marry each other and evade the provisions of section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• In a separate petition, Sunita Narula claimed that Jitender Mathur was swayed by his Hindu wife Meena Mathur and their children. After marrying Sunita Narula, Jitender Mathur reverted to Hinduism. He agreed to provide for his first Hindu wife and their children from that marriage. Consequently, Jitender Mathur refuses to support his second wife, who remains a Muslim and lacks legal protection under any personal law.
• In another petition, Geeta Rani stated that she married Pradeep Kumar according to Hindu customs in 1988. The petitioner accused her husband of assaulting her, resulting in a broken jawbone during one incident. Her husband then ran away with another woman named Deepa and married her after converting to Islam. The petitioner also alleged that the intention behind the conversion to Islam was to circumvent the provisions of section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Ruling

The court's ruling marked an important advancement in safeguarding women's rights and curbing the misapplication of personal laws. The court:

• Declared that converting to Islam for a second marriage constituted an exploitation of personal laws.
• Instructed the parliament to submit an affidavit on the measures implemented to ensure a UCC.
• Referenced instances where the personal laws of various religions have clashed.
• Asserted that there was no reason to postpone the establishment of a UCC applicable to all citizens.

Conclusion
The Constitutional Aspects Surrounding the Uniform Civil Code underscore the conflict between the ideals of secularism and individual rights on one hand, and the need to maintain religious and cultural diversity on the other. The discussion stresses on how to harmonize these constitutional elements while providing justice and equality for all citizens.

The introduction of a uniform civil code is frequently a politically charged matter. Political parties may leverage this discourse, which can result in division and social tension. Opponents contend that a UCC could violate the religious freedoms of minority groups by enforcing secular laws that clash with their religious traditions and customs. For many minority communities, their religious and cultural practices are deeply connected.

The establishment of a UCC might risk diminishing traditional customs, raising concerns about the safeguarding of cultural heritage. Depending on the current legal structure, enacting a UCC may necessitate changes to the constitution, which can be a complicated and lengthy undertaking. To alleviate the worries of religious and cultural minorities, it is vital to conduct thorough consultations and take their viewpoints into account during the formulation and implementation of a uniform civil code.