Uniform Civil Code and State Enactments: Constitutional Framework and Practical Implications

This article examines how a prospective national Uniform Civil Code (UCC) would interact with existing and emerging State-level UCC statutes, with a focus on legislative competence, repugnancy, and transition issues.

It matters for practitioners advising on family arrangements, succession planning, corporate structuring linked to family ownership and cross-State residence, because the eventual design and timing of a UCC will directly affect rights, obligations and forum-selection strategies in both contentious and non-contentious matters.

1. Issue, Law, Position, Action: Article 44 and Fundamental Rights

(i) 1.1 Issue: Locating UCC within the constitutional framework

The core issue is how the constitutional aspiration for a UCC in Article 44 relates to enforceable fundamental rights (equality, non-discrimination, life and liberty, freedom of religion) and to legislative power of Parliament and State legislatures over family-law subjects.

The UCC, as commonly conceived, would create a common civil-law framework for all citizens on marriage, divorce, succession and adoption, displacing or substantially modifying religion-specific personal laws.

(ii) 1.2 Law: Directive Principles and fundamental rights

Key provisions:

  • Article 44: “The state shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India.”
  • Part IV: Directive Principles, including Article 44, are non-justiciable.
  • Part III:
    • Article 14: equality before law and equal protection of laws.
    • Article 15: prohibition of discrimination, including on grounds of religion and sex.
    • Article 21: protection of life and personal liberty.
    • Articles 25 and 26: freedom of religion and rights of religious denominations.
  • Article 12: defines “State” for Part III, but the Constitution does not separately define “State” for Article 44.
  • Minerva Mills v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625: establishes that harmony between Part III and Part IV forms part of the basic structure.

International instruments:

  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948: recognises equal rights of men and women.
  • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), 1979: targets discrimination against women, including in family relations.

Judicial observations on UCC and personal-law reform:

  • Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985 (2) SCC 556.
  • Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, 1995 (3) SCC 635.
  • John Vellamattom v. Union of India, 2003 SCC Online SC 716.
  • Shayara Bano v. Union of India, 2017 (9) SCC 1.
  • Jose Paulo Coutinho v. Maria Luiza Valentia Pere, 2019 SCC Online SC 1196.

These decisions highlight gender injustice within certain personal-law rules and contain remarks urging movement towards common or reformed civil standards, while not themselves enacting a UCC.

(iii) 1.3 Position: UCC as an equality-driven, rights-constrained project

From a practitioner standpoint:

  • A UCC is best understood as a mechanism to set uniform minimum standards of gender equality and personal autonomy across communities, consistent with Articles 14, 15 and 21.
  • At the same time, any UCC must respect:
    • The basic-structure requirement of harmonious balance between rights and Directive Principles (per Minerva Mills).
    • Freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26, which, though subject to public order, morality, health and other fundamental rights, cannot be overridden arbitrarily.

Hence, a UCC cannot be justified solely as implementation of Article 44; its substantive content must withstand Part III scrutiny. Provisions that directly discriminate on prohibited grounds or disproportionately burden religious practices are vulnerable to challenge.

(iv) 1.4 Action: How practitioners should position advice today

(a) Recognise dual anchors: Frame any UCC discussion for clients around both gender justice and rights-compliance, not only around Directive Principles.

(b) Flag litigation risk: For high-stake family settlements or corporate-family restructurings that may straddle the pre- and post‑UCC phases, highlight the likelihood of constitutional challenges to particular provisions, especially where they impact existing entitlements of women or religious practices.

(c) Document intention and consent: In current drafting (e.g., family settlements, shareholder agreements tied to succession plans), clearly record parties’ intentions under existing personal laws and anticipated changes under a possible UCC, to minimise disputes when the legal framework shifts.

(d) Monitor jurisprudence: Track future decisions applying Minerva Mills, Shayara Bano, Jose Paulo Coutinho and related authorities to family-law reforms and any enacted UCC provisions.

2. Issue, Law, Position, Action: Legislative Competence and State-Level UCCs

(i) 2.1 Issue: Who can legislate UCC-type rules, and to what extent?

Family-law subjects relevant to any UCC—marriage, divorce, succession, adoption, and increasingly live-in relationships—are listed in the Concurrent List, meaning both Parliament and State legislatures can legislate. Several States have already moved or are moving in that direction.

Key factual developments:

  • Goa: Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 operates as a common civil-law regime.
  • Uttarakhand: Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code Act, 2024 (Act No. 3 of 2024), with 392 sections, four parts and seven chapters, in force since January 2025:
    • Part I: marriage and divorce.
    • Part II: succession.
    • Part III: live-in relationships.
    • Part IV: repeal provisions.
  • Gujarat: UCC statute reportedly enacted in March 2026.
  • Assam: UCC statute reportedly enacted in May 2026.
  • Madhya Pradesh: UCC bill introduced in July 2026.
  • Drafting committees constituted in Maharashtra, West Bengal and Rajasthan; Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai heads the committee in Maharashtra and earlier headed the committees in Uttarakhand and Gujarat.

(ii) 2.2 Law: Concurrent List and repugnancy framework

Relevant constitutional provisions:

  • Seventh Schedule, Concurrent List: includes marriage, divorce, adoption, wills, intestacy and succession.
  • Article 254(1): where a State law is repugnant to a Parliamentary law on a Concurrent List subject, the central law prevails and the State law is void to the extent of repugnancy.
  • Article 254(2): a State law on a Concurrent List subject, which is inconsistent with an earlier Parliamentary law, may be valid if:
    • It has been reserved for the President’s consideration; and
    • It has received Presidential assent.
  • Even in such cases, Parliament may later enact a law that adds to, amends or repeals the State law.