Explained | The Uniform Civil Code 

What were the Constituent Assembly debates about the UCC? What were the different arguments? Is uniformity even desirable for a nation that is as diverse as India?

The story so far: Ahead of the upcoming Assembly elections, Gujarat on October 29 joined the list of BJP-ruled States that have called for implementing the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). Gujarat Home Minister Harsh Sanghavi along with Union Minister Parshottam Rupala announced that the State will constitute a committee headed by a retired High Court judge to evaluate all aspects for implementing the UCC.

Article 44 contained in part IV of the Constitution says that the state “shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India”. While there is no draft or model document yet for the UCC, the framers of the Constitution envisioned that it would be a uniform set of laws that would replace the distinct personal laws of each religion with regard to matters like marriage, divorce, adoption, and inheritance. Part IV of the Constitution outlines the Directive Principles of State Policy, which, while not enforceable or justiciable in a court of law, are fundamental to the country’s governance.

The clause on UCC generated substantial debate in the Constituent Assembly about whether it should be included as a fundamental right or a directive principle. The matter had to be settled by vote; with a majority of 5:4, wherein the sub-committee on fundamental rights headed by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel decided that securing a UCC was not within the scope of fundamental rights.

Members of the Assembly took starkly contrasting stances on the UCC. Some also felt that India was too diverse a country for the UCC. Member Naziruddin Ahmad from Bengal argued that certain civil laws in all communities were “inseparably connected with religious beliefs and practices”. He felt the UCC would come in the way of Article 19 of the draft Constitution (now Article 25) which guarantees the right to freedom of religion subject to public order, morality, and health. While he was not against the idea of a uniform civil law, he argued that the time for that had not yet come, adding that the process had to be gradual and not without the consent of the concerned communities.

Member K.M. Munshi however, rejected the notion that a UCC would be against the freedom of religion as the Constitution allowed the government to make laws covering secular activities related to religious practices if they were intended for social reform. He advocated for the UCC, stating benefits such as promoting the unity of the nation and equality for women. He said that if personal laws of inheritance, succession and so on were seen as a part of religion, then many discriminatory practices of the Hindu personal law against women could not be eliminated.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had more of an ambivalent stance toward the UCC. He felt that while desirable, the UCC should remain “purely voluntary” in the initial stages. He stated that the Article “merely” proposed that the state shall endeavour to secure a UCC, which means it would not impose it on all citizens. The amendments to protect personal laws from the UCC were eventually rejected.

It has been argued that while India does have uniformity in most criminal and civil matters like the Criminal Procedure Code, Civil Procedure Code, and the Contract Act, States have made over 100 amendments to the CrPC and IPC, as well as several amendments to civil laws. For instance, BJP-ruled States reduced the fines prescribed and justified by the Centre under the amended Motor Vehicles Act. Another example could be that the law of anticipatory bail differs from one State to another.