Background guide

“Deliberation on the Constitutional, Legal, Social and Political

Implications of Implementing a Uniform Civil Code (UCC)”
LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE BOARD

Dear Honourable Members,

Greetings!

It is with immense honour and privilege that we welcome you to the Model Parliament
Simulation at Christ Academy Junior College. The Executive Board is delighted to invite
each one of you to participate in what promises to be an engaging, intellectually stimulating,
and enriching parliamentary experience.

As elected representatives in this simulation, you now assume the responsibilities entrusted to
Members of Parliament. Throughout the proceedings, we expect every member to uphold the
values of parliamentary democracy by participating with diligence, integrity, and respect for
the House. Your role extends beyond representing your allotted portfolio or political party it
demands informed deliberation, constructive engagement, and a commitment to advancing the
national interest.

The agenda for this session shall be:

“Deliberation on the Constitutional, Legal, Social and Political Implications of

Implementing a Uniform Civil Code (UCC)”

Given the significance and contemporary relevance of the agenda, the Board expects every
Member to arrive thoroughly prepared with comprehensive research. Participants should
possess a sound understanding of not only the agenda but also their assigned portfolio, political
party's official stance, relevant constitutional provisions, statutory framework, judicial
precedents (where applicable), and the positions of other stakeholders in the House. Such
preparation will ensure substantive debate and meaningful policymaking throughout the
simulation.

Members are also advised to familiarize themselves with the Rules of Procedure, parliamentary
conventions, and legislative practices governing the proceedings. Decorum, discipline, and
respect for the Chair shall remain paramount throughout the sessions. While passionate
political discourse and ideological disagreements are integral to parliamentary democracy, they
must always be supported by factual accuracy, procedural correctness, and reasoned
argumentation.

Model Parliament is often perceived as a forum for political theatrics; however, the Executive
Board wishes to clarify that while persuasive oratory and political strategy are appreciated, the
primary focus shall remain on legislative substance, constitutional understanding, procedural
proficiency, and evidence-based debate. Members who effectively combine technical
knowledge with impactful parliamentary participation will distinguish themselves during the
proceedings.

We sincerely hope this simulation serves as an opportunity to deepen your understanding of

parliamentary democracy, sharpen your legislative and debating skills, and engage in
thoughtful deliberation on issues of national importance.

The Executive Board looks forward to witnessing informed discussion, spirited yet respectful
debate, and exemplary parliamentary conduct from every Honourable Member.

We wish you the very best in your preparations and eagerly await your participation in the
House.

Regards,

Diya D Nair (Co - Speaker)

Pradyun Raju Vasantharaju (Co - Speaker)

RULES OF PROCEDURE

● The session will begin with a Roll call wherein you have to mark your presence.
Remember, there is no concept of PRESENT AND VOTING in this forum.

● Post the roll call, the committee will enter into the round of Opening Statements. There
will be no default time for opening statements. Opening statements are speeches which
are used to acquaint the committee with your stance on the agenda at hand.

● Opening statements are mandatory for all members. Opening statements will be done
at once, unlike the GSL which never exhausts and keeps getting reintroduced in
committee.

● Post every speech in the Opening Statements, we will be entertaining questions which
is known as Point of Information (PoI). It is a question based upon the speech made or
any relevant query.

● Post the opening statements, we shall be establishing sessions which are of two kinds –
Public Session or Private Session.

● Motions essentially are procedural initiations to direct committee flow.

● The Executive Board will have their role in recognizing speakers and the sequence in
which they would speak and accordingly the members will make their statements. The
Executive Board will also exercise their discretion in moderating the sessions for
efficient flow of debate.

● A public session is on record. The media is present, the statements made are shown to
the general public hence one has to be very careful with the party policy and ideology
while a private session is not on record which means the media is not present and the
members can indulge into real politics which takes place behind closed doors.

● Public sessions will be used to discuss sub-agendas pertaining to the main agenda. The
default time for a moderated session is as per the EB’s consideration of the timings and
other factors.

● Private session will akin to a zero hour, where you may speak on any other issue of
National importance except the agenda.
POINTS

Points are essentially certain All four points will be considered in the forum:

● Point of Personal Privilege – A point of personal privilege is usually raised if someone

has any physical discomfort during the proceedings of the committee. The point may
also be used to get repetition of a part of a statement which was not audible/clear. But
in this committee we shall permit its usage only for audibility issues or clarification /
repetition.

● Point of Procedural Enquiry – A member may rise to a Point of Procedural Enquiry

requesting an explanation from the Executive Board on the Rules of Procedure or the
committee proceedings. This point may not interrupt a Speaker.

● Point of Order – POO shall be raised on the factual inaccuracy in the speech of any
member. The exact line has to be quoted in order to assert the same followed by an
unquote with the correct established fact. Please note – the executive board shall decide
if they would accept Points of Order in writing or verbally depending on the committee
dynamics.

● Point of Information – This is a point on which a question in context of the speech

may be asked. A member can ask questions on the speech verbally as well as through
chit in written format.
INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE

Model Parliament is a simulation of the legislative functioning of the Parliament of India,

designed to provide participants with an immersive experience of law-making, governance,
and democratic deliberation. Unlike discussion-based political simulations, Model Parliament
closely mirrors the procedures, conventions, and decorum observed in the Houses of
Parliament, requiring members to function within an established constitutional and procedural
framework.

Participants assume the roles of Members of Parliament and are expected to debate, scrutinize,
and deliberate upon Bills, motions, and matters of national importance while adhering to
parliamentary procedure. The objective is not merely to engage in political discourse, but to
emulate the legislative process through informed debate, reasoned argumentation, and
procedural discipline.

The proceedings of this simulation shall be governed by a codified Rules of Procedure, drawing
inspiration from the practices and conventions of the Parliament of India while incorporating
necessary adaptations to ensure a balanced, educational, and engaging simulation.

ACCEPTED SOURCES

1. Government Reports (Each ministry publishes its own reports including External
Affairs Ministry) 2. PTI, PIB

3. Government Websites

4. Government run News channels i.e., RSTV, LSTV(Now Sansad TV), DD News

5. Standing Committee Reports/ Commission Reports

6. Right To Information(RTI) Proofs

7. Parliamentary Standing Committee reports

8. Questions and Answers of the Parliament

9. Judgements from Hon'ble courts of judiciary.

10. Constitutional Law Commentaries such as DD Basu and MP Jain. Note: These sources
are merely indicative and not exhaustive. The authoritative value of a source will be
decided on a case to case basis.
Introduction – Meaning and Concept of a Uniform Civil Code

Right, so the first job at hand for us, is to understand the concept of essential meaning of what
a Uniform Civil Code is and what is the purpose of its potential existence. Firstly, What is Law?
Think about it. Done? Let’s proceed then. Law basically refers to a holistic framework or
certain rules. regulations and directions which eventually lead to:–

1. Documentation of the required rules of conduct

2. Rights of Duties of individuals involved
3. Remedies in case of non-compliance

Now, in Indian Context what exactly comprises of as “law”. It can be the Constitution, Statutes
or Codes passed by the parliament, any judicial precedents or for that matter even customs.

Let’s look at what Article 13(3) says about definition of a law :

“In this article, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(a) ‘law’ includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or
usage having in the territory of India the force of law;
(b) ‘laws in force’ includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent
authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this Constitution and not
previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then
in operation either at all or in particular areas.”

Now, it’s imperative for us to understand the branches of law or categorization of law to make
the discussion on the uniform civil code more interesting. Law has few multiaxial
classifications , let’s look at some of them relevant to our discussion today.

1. Substantive vs Procedural Law

Substantive law is the actual content which determines what law is and what it comprises of. It
can be the right, duties, liabilities or any specific directions or rules. e.g:- The Indian Contracts
Act 1872, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023

Procedural Law on the other hand talks about, the mechanism or the process of enforcement of
that law mandated by the substantive law. e.g:- The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023
 2. Civil Law vs Criminal Law

Civil Law is concerned with the codification of certain principles and guidelines relating to
disputes between two legal entities either personnel or organizations. There is no “criminal
nature” to such disputes. Civil laws generally address remedies by awarding compensation,
restitution, injunction or a fine to the injured party or the Court. For example, breach of contract
, torts , property disputes, family law disputes can be considered as civil issues dealt by civil
law. Civil Law clearly demarcates the rights and obligations of the members associated. The
Procedural Component of Civil Law is the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.

Criminal Law on the other hand deals with instances of attached criminality. These cases are
heard in criminal courts. Now here, there is something interesting. A criminal misdoing directly
is supposed to affect the Government and hence it is the government who files the case on
moral grounds. Here, it is not only 2 legal entities involved, the State also is a consideration
owing to greater wrongdoings in criminal matters. The procedural Component of Criminal Law
is the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023. Earlier it was the CrPC which is now
repealed.

Now two concepts pertaining to Civil and Criminal Law becomes very important here relating
to the burden of proof. Firstly, Preponderance of Probabilities pertaining to Civil Law. This
basically means that the plaintiff must prove that his approach or version is high in probability
(at least 50 percent or more). Secondly, Beyond Reasonable doubt pertaining to criminal law.
Since, criminal offences are way more serious and affects liberty, the person is innocent till
proven guilty ( with some exceptions) and it is the duty of the state to prove that the accused is
guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

3. Personal Law vs Secular Law

As self-explanatory from the terms itself, personal law is guided by certain belief traditions and
customs of the community and are applicable to those communities only. Like for example,
Shariat Act 1937 or Hindu Succession Act, 1955. Personal law operates as private civil
[Link] Law can be codified as well as non-codified like majority of Muslim personal
laws. Now, whether Personal Laws are subject to judicial interference and we will be having
an entirely separate section altogether having this extremely interesting discussion.
Secular Law, on the other hand applies regardless of religion. For example, Special Marriage
Act 1954.

Understanding Uniform Civil Code

The term has 3 root words –

- Uniform
- Civil
- Code

Root Word 1: Uniform

Uniform does not mean common, that is the first thing we have to understand. Uniform
basically means similar in similar circumstances, consistent and an applicable standard.

Root Word 2: Civil

We clearly had a detailed discussion on civil and criminal law and from there we infer that
matters pertaining to contracts, torts, family law etc come under the ambit of civil law and it is
not criminal in nature. Now, the civil topics coming under the purview of the UCC are family
matters like – inheritance, succession, adoption, wills, marriage, maintenance etc. It is to be
noted that, the UCC promises to only adjudicate civil issues and not infringe upon the essential
religious practices.

Root Word 3 : Code

Code refers to a compiled assimilation of a set of existing laws and bringing them under one
codified document.

Now, bringing the three together,

Uniform Civil Code is a consolidated framework of laws pertaining to civil issues like
marriage, inheritance, divorce, succession, marriage, adoption, guardianship. It will be
uniform in nature will be applicable to all religions in cases relating to civil disputes thus
reducing or eliminating dependency of personal laws aiming towards national integration,
gender justice, faster dispute resolution and social coherence.
Now, since we are building up our concept it is important to the difference between CPC Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the proposed Uniform Civil Code. The UCC is aimed to be a
substantive civil law – substantiating the rules regulations relating to the civil aspects discussed
above outlining the civil rights. CPC on the other hand is a procedural civil law dealing with
the method or process of adjudication in the respective civil matters. In the further sections we
will evaluate the other nuances pertaining to the UCC and the understanding of jurisprudence
as well.

Now, remember we spoke about matters which are covered as civil matters. It is understood
that the UCC will be codifying only family law matters (Entry 5 of the concurrent list) and not
extend to matters which are already governed by existing statues like torts, contracts, IPR etc.
Thus, UCC is in direct tussle with Personal Laws applicable to Family Law and customary
practices of religions.

Historical Background

Now, if we look at the Pre- British Era, Indian Society was comfortably living with the practice
of their own laws, traditions and customs pertaining to the civil aspects of family law. Hindu
law got its authority from Dharmashastric texts, mainly the Manusmriti, along with the
Mitakshara commentary that was influential in many areas and the Dayabhaga school in
Bengal. Each of these provided specific rules for marriage, inheritance, guardianship, and
property. Muslim personal law followed Quranic teachings, Hadith, classical Hanafi law, and
local customs.

Among tribal groups and non-Hindu, non-Muslim communities, customary law based on
kinship was common. Importantly, no governing power in medieval India tried to create a
uniform civil law for everyone; personal issues were mostly handled by an individual’s
religious community or local customs.

This historical situation of diverse legal practices is the foundation for understanding the later
constitutional goal of a Uniform Civil Code. It reflects the fragmentation that the modern Indian
state aimed to address within a constitutional aim of equality. In 1772, Warren Hastings created
the Judicial Plan. Under this plan, court systems were required to administer Hindu Law in
regard to Hindu Disputes and Islamic Law for Muslim Disputes related to inheritance, caste,
marriage and other related religious practices. Through this judicial plan, religious law for the
first time was made a Recognised Legal Category that the state was responsible to administer.

This recognition led to a formal establishment of religious identity through legal means while
creating a belief that the state should administer to its citizens based on their religious beliefs.
The British government implemented a “hands-off” policy regarding religion in the legal sense
to prevent political disturbances; however they also created and enforced a system of unified
and codified laws governing all criminal activity, evidentiary matters and contracts. The result
of the dichotomy of unified secular law and a multi-faith pluralistic system for other personal
matters is the structural tension that continues to drive the movement for a Unified Civil Code.
It also demonstrates that legal diversity did not arise from Indian culture but was a product of
colonialism and supported through the power of the state, continuing till date with minor
selective attempts to codification.

The first known reference to a uniform civil code was made in an 1840 report, Lex Loci, created
under the direction of Thomas Macaulay. This report recommended the establishment of a
single set of civil and criminal laws for all of India but specifically excluded personal-law from
the proposed single code because of the declared need to protect individual religious
sensibilities. As a result of this exclusion, British authorities developed a guideline for secular
areas of law (i.e. Indian Penal Code, 1860; Indian Contract Act, 1872; Transfer of Property Act,
1882; and Evidence Act, 1872), while still retaining individual religious-based personal-law.
The outcome of this dichotomy in the legal system resulted in the British system having
uniformity, certainty, and predictability for the majority of citizens but resulted in the existence
of a religiously disparate and unequal legal systems for the minority of citizens.

Thus, the British reservations concerning personal-law based on practical political

considerations were an essential point of consideration when the constitution as established
because the existence of the exception for personal-law was based on a colonial compromise
rather than an inherent principal of Indian civilization.

During the early 20th century, the notion of modern citizenship and women's rights, along with
the need for legal rationalization, began to be discussed as part of the nationalist discourse in
India. A number of intellectuals M.G. Ranade, Bal Gangadhar Tilak (to some degree), Nehru,
and Ambedkar's discussions focused on whether a nation could exist as a single entity with
fragmented personal laws based on religion. The Indian National Congress eventually accepted
the perspective that civil law reform was necessary for both social development and the
achievement of equality among genders.

In contrast, after the end of the Khilafat movement in 1924 and the growth of communal
relations post-independence, the All-India Muslim League developed a considerable amount
of apprehension about the potential of a singular civil code in a predominantly Hindu nation as
it would impose the values of the majority onto minorities. This conflict between reformists
and ethnonationalists prior to the Independence Movement created an immediate political
context for the later conflicts among the Constituent Assembly regarding Article 44.

As part of its deliberations leading to independence, one of the biggest subjects under debate
was UCC. Many of the concerns about UCC stemmed from the tragic events of Partition and
the fears of the minority communities, especially Muslims, about the future of their cultural
heritage. Indian leaders saw that forcing a uniform code on people shortly after the Partition
would be viewed as an act of coercion and would only serve to increase tensions between
communities.

According to Dr. B.R Ambedkar's argument in the Assembly regarding the UCC during the
Assembly deliberations for the Constitution, a modern state cannot survive and thrive with a
citizenship scheme that distinguishes citizens based on their religion. On the other hand,
representatives of different minority communities strongly objected to UCC being discussed in
the same chapter as Fundamental Rights.

The final outcome of the negotiations resulted in UCC being placed in Article 44 under the
Directive Principles of State Policy. While this was a compromise allowing for the Constitution
to express its wish to have a uniform civil code, it also permitted for implementation to be
postponed. Hence, it represents the tension that existed between a founder's idealism regarding
constitutionalism and the realities of nation-building in the highly charged emotional
environment of a newly formed country, particularly following a traumatic loss of life and
destructive experience.
Constituent Assembly Debates

In its early stages of drafting, the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) was included as part of
Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee and the question was whether such a system would be
subject to judicial enforcement. The Fundamental Rights Sub-Committee led by Sardar Patel
concluded that enforcing a UCC as an individual right would lead to widespread chaos
immediately after partition and that the State lacked both the social and administrative capacity
to enforce it uniformly across communities. Consequently, the issue of UCC was passed to the
Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).

The DPSP later included a reference to UCC in Article 44 of the Constitution of India, and as
a result, UCC was seen primarily as a constitutional goal as opposed to a legally enforceable
obligation. The CA's decision to include UCC in the DPSP illustrates their deliberate approach
in recognising the necessity of achieving uniformity while also recognising the diversity of the
socio-cultural environment that called for implementation through gradual development rather
than through immediate imposition of the UCC.

Ambedkar's work formed the basis of intellectual thought today regarding the debate over an
uniform civil code (UCC). His position was that establishing a uniformity of laws across faiths
was critical for a modern secular republic, to eliminate, particularly, the injustice women
experience through laws based on one’s religion. However, he was adamant that establishing a
UCC would not require eliminating religion from the lives of its followers. Ambedkar
explained that individuals within each religious community should be able to continue their
religiously sanctioned civil practices such as marriage ceremonies; however, the legal
consequences of those marriages such as inheritance, divorce, maintenance, etc. Should be
established under an identical legal framework throughout the country.

Most importantly, Ambedkar suggested that a UCC should begin as an “optional UCC,” where
communities could voluntarily adopt the uniform code. Ambedkar's belief that establishing a
UCC should be viewed as an evolutionary social process and not a forcible takeover of people's
religions demonstrates his efforts to maintain a balance between his belief in constitutional
ideals, and the need for pragmatic statecraft.

Additionally, Munshi said that he felt all personal laws, even those for the Muslim community,
were not laws provided by God; they were essentially the result of social relations and the
practice of the past; therefore, the government could reform personal laws if it chose to do so.
He also stated that there was a double standard in the civil code because there is no objection
from communities when government enforces laws regarding contracts or criminal violations
equally across all communities, but that there was objection from communities only when the
laws were to be amended to provide for gender equality. Munshi’s philosophy is the foundation
for the idea of constitutional secularism; he believed that the government should never be
obliged to adopt any religious injunctions, particularly where civil law is concerned.

The concern over any implementation of UCC was raised mainly by Mohammad Ismail,
Naziruddin Ahmad, Pocker Sahib Bahadur etc.; they have raised valid points regarding the
UCC as a threat to the religious identity of minorities - people were experiencing extreme
insecurity as a result of the India/Pakistan Partition.

General Introduction and laying the Foundation

The principles of the Directive are established by Article 37, which proclaims: “The provisions
contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down
are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country, and it shall be the duty of the
State to apply these principles in making laws.” Article 44 has considerable normative value,
even if it does not have the force of law.

The Constitution also creates a Constitutionally protected balance between the goal of
achieving a Uniform Civil Code and the religious and cultural rights protected by Articles 25-
30. Importantly, the Constitution draws a distinction between the beliefs of Religion and
Secular matters, such as, Marriage, Divorce, Succession, Adoption, etc.

The Constitution places these matters in the Concurrent List. This confirms that State’s
authority over these subjects arises out of their Birth from a religion and not as a consequence
of the religious belief itself. While the Constitution protects Freedom of Religion, it does not
prevent civil matters from being brought into conformity with the principles of Equality,
Dignity, and Gender Justice. The Constitution expects that over time, through the application
of the principles of Equality, Dignity, and Gender Justice, a Uniform and Secular Civil Code
will emerge that provides for Personal Autonomy, National Integration, and Social Reforms.

In fact, the case for a UCC emerged in the Shah Bano case ruling in 1985, more than thirty
years after the Constitution was drafted. After her husband divorced her after 40 years of
marriage by giving triple talaq, Shah Bano moved to the Supreme Court seeking maintenance
and refused her routine maintenance. In a decision in favor of Bano, the SC bench observed:

“There is no evidence of any official activity for framing a common civil code for the coun-
try. A common Civil Code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate
loyalties to laws with conflicting ideologies.”

In India, various religious groups are currently regulated by a set of personal rules, which have
been codified through different pieces of legislation over the years. These laws concentrate
primarily on the following areas:

• Marriage and divorce

• Custody and Guardianship

• Adoption and Maintenance

• Succession and Inheritance

Four bills, for example, codify Hindu personal law: the Hindu Marriage Act, the Hindu
Succession Act, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, and the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act. For these rules, the term ’Hindu’ also includes Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists.

“The reference Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing Sikh,
Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed
accordingly.” Muslim personal law is not codified per se. It is based on their religious
scriptures, while acts such as the Shariat Application Act and Dissolution of Muslim Marriages
Act explicitly acknowledge some aspects of this in India.

The Indian Christian Marriages Act and the Indian Divorce Act control Christian marriages and
divorces, while the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act governs Zoroastrians. Then, there are more
’secular’ laws that entirely ignore faith, such as the Special Marriage Act, in which marriages
across religions take place, and the Guardians and Wards Act, which defines guardians’ rights
and duties.

Besides, to preserve distinct regional identities, the Constitution provides such exceptions
concern- ing family law for the states of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Andhra Pradesh, and
Goa.
Instead of using it as an emotive issue to gain political advantage, political and intellectual
leaders should try to evolve a consensus. The question is not of minority protection or even of
national unity. It simply involves treating every human being with dignity, something that
personal laws have not been able to accomplish thus far.

Significance and Implications

Starting from Late Rajiv Gandhi’s time till now, the call for a Uniform Civil Code has always
featured on the agenda of the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), and it has also found mention in the
manifesto of BJP for the 2019 Lok Sabha Election. As now, BJP is in power and has already
declared the practice of Triple Talaq illegal and unconstitutional; it may be a matter of days
now the subject leapfrogs from the cycle of debates to actual law. As a result, it becomes crucial
to consider the potential significance of UCC in India and its possible ramifications. At first,
one should understand that a Uniform Code need not be progressive also. Like a coin, it has
also got both faces. Keeping this in mind, opinions and verdicts should be given.

Impact on Judgement

It is quite clear from India’s post-Independence history that our honorable judges have always
found it difficult to decide or order anything on the issues that have their roots based on
religious grounds. There are or have been many practices in different religions that are quite
controversial in terms of discrimination, especially against women. On one side is the Article
25 that gives freedom to every citizen, the Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice,
and propagation of religion, while on the other side are Articles 14, 15, 21 and 44, which protect
fundamental rights like equality before the law, no discrimination based on sex, caste, race and
religion; freedom to live with dignity.

The decisions have also been made because both sides are equally significant and contradict
each other. There is one case of the Sabarimala verdict in which one of the judges, DY
Chandrachud, of the Supreme Court condemned the judgment of the Narasu Appa Mali case
of 1951. This situation arose because of looking at these articles from different perspectives.
Looking at all these things the Supreme Court has always been seen in favor of UCC as this
will make the decision-making process simpler and more transparent. It will also address all
the queries frequently presented in court concerning the equal treatment of all citizens, which
would significantly aid in bolstering citizens' trust in the Judiciary and Constitution of India

Every religion has its own beliefs and practices. In India, these are governed by a system of
personal laws that have been codified from time to time through various legislation pieces.

These laws mainly focus on the areas as:

• Marriage and divorce

• Custody and Guardianship

• Adoption and Maintenance

• Succession and Inheritance

Implementing UCC over this will have an impact. Therefore, to look at its significance and
implication, it is advisable to study religion-wise how it will affect.
Case Laws:- (Very Important)

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

Facts: A 62-year-old Muslim woman, divorced by triple talaq, was denied maintenance beyond
the iddat period by her husband, who argued Muslim Personal Law exempted him from Section
125 CrPC.
Ratio: The Court held Section 125 CrPC (a secular provision applicable to all citizens
regardless of religion) prevails, and a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to maintenance under
it. Chief Justice Chandrachud observed that Article 44 had remained a dead letter and that a
common civil code would help national integration by removing disparate loyalties to
conflicting legal ideologies. This triggered the political backlash leading to the Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

2. Ms. Jordan Diengdeh v. S.S. Chopra, AIR 1985 SC 935

Facts: Concerned the inadequacy of divorce grounds available to a Christian woman under the
Indian Divorce Act compared to other communities.
Ratio: The Court reiterated the "immediate and compulsive need" for a uniform civil code,
noting the unsatisfactory state of affairs caused by its absence, and observed there is no
necessary connection between religion and personal law in a civilised society.

3. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 1531

Facts: A Hindu husband converted to Islam solely to contract a second marriage (polygamy)
without dissolving his first Hindu marriage, to escape Section 494 IPC (bigamy).
Ratio: A Hindu marriage subsisting under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be dissolved
merely by conversion to Islam; the second marriage is void and the husband is liable for
bigamy. The Court held there was no dissent on this bigamy ratio, though Justice R.M. Sahai's
remarks favouring immediate UCC enforcement were obiter, and he separately warned that
immediate enforcement could cause disintegration among communities. Important for your
guide: only the anti-bigamy holding is binding ratio; the strong UCC advocacy is obiter dicta
— later clarified in Lily Thomas (below).

4. John Vallamattom v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 2902

Facts: Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 restricted the right of Christians to
bequeath property for religious/charitable purposes.
Ratio: Section 118 was struck down as discriminatory and violative of Article 14, since it
applied only to Christians. CJI Khare reiterated regret over the non-implementation of Article
44 and reaffirmed that a common civil code would help national integration.

5. Maharshi Avadhesh v. Union of India, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 713

Facts: A writ petition sought a mandamus directing the government to enact a UCC and to
strike down the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
Ratio: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that enacting a common civil code is a matter
for the legislature, not something courts can direct through mandamus. This is the foundational
case for the "separation of powers" argument against judicial imposition of UCC.

6. Pannalal Bansilal Pitti v. State of A.P., AIR 1996 SC 1023

Facts: Challenge to provisions of the A.P. Charitable Hindu Religious Institutions and
Endowments Act, 1987 abolishing hereditary trusteeship.
Ratio: The Court held that in a pluralist society, the Directive Principles themselves visualise
diversity, and a uniform law — though highly desirable — cannot be enacted "in one go"
without risking counter-productive effects on national unity; gradual, progressive reform is
preferable to a legislature imposing uniformity at once. This is a key precedent cited by
opponents of an immediate, sweeping UCC.

7. Ahmedabad Women Action Group (AWAG) v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 573
Facts: Multiple PILs challenging gender-discriminatory provisions across Hindu, Muslim, and
Christian personal laws and effectively seeking judicial intervention toward uniformity.
Ratio: The Court held that matters of personal law and social reform are primarily the domain
of the legislature, not the courts, and that the Constitution's framers intentionally kept personal
laws outside the ambit of Part III (Fundamental Rights). It also clarified that the desirability of
enacting a UCC did not directly arise in Sarla Mudgal's case, since the relief sought there was
limited to the narrow question of bigamy after conversion. Petitions dismissed in limine.

8. Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650

Facts: A follow-up challenge relating to the Sarla Mudgal bigamy-by-conversion principle,
questioning whether the earlier judgment amounted to a binding direction for a UCC.
Ratio: The Court held that any direction for enforcement of Article 44 could not have been
issued by a single judge in Sarla Mudgal, and reaffirmed AWAG's finding that the desirability
of a UCC did not directly arise in that case. This significantly narrows how much precedential
weight Sarla Mudgal's UCC remarks actually carry — useful for a "against" argument on
judicial overreach.

9. State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali, AIR 1952 Bom 84

Facts: Challenge to the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act on grounds it
discriminated against Hindus (since Muslims could still practice polygamy).
Ratio: The Court affirmed that personal laws are not "laws in force" for Article 13 purposes
and fall outside Part III's fundamental rights scrutiny, and that the democratically elected
legislature — not courts — is best suited to determine the pace and content of social reform of
personal laws. Foundational for the argument that reform of personal laws toward uniformity
should be legislative, phased, and community- led rather than judicially mandated.

Status Quo

The Uniform Civil Code remains a non-justiciable Directive Principle under Article 44,
meaning courts cannot compel Parliament to enact it (as affirmed in Maharshi Avadhesh), and
for decades it existed only as aspirational text, with Goa being the sole Indian state with a
functioning uniform civil code prior to 2024, inherited from the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867.
On the Law Commission front, the 21st Law Commission released a 185-page consultation
paper on 31 August 2018 concluding that a UCC was "neither necessary nor desirable at this
stage," while stressing that secularism cannot contradict India's prevalent plurality; it instead
recommended reforming individual personal laws to remove discriminatory provisions rather
than replacing them outright. This position was revisited when the 22nd Law Commission, on
14 June 2023, solicited fresh public and religious-organisation input on UCC implementation,
signalling renewed momentum at the national level, though it has not yet issued a final report
or recommended central legislation.

The real shift has happened at the state level rather than in Parliament. Uttarakhand became the
first state to enact a UCC when its Legislative Assembly passed the Uniform Civil Code of
Uttarakhand Act on 7 February 2024, notified in January 2025, covering marriage, divorce,
inheritance, and mandatory live-in relationship registration while excluding Scheduled Tribes.
Gujarat followed as the second state, with its Assembly passing the Gujarat Uniform Civil
Code Bill on 24–25 March 2026 after a seven-hour debate, establishing a common framework
for marriage, divorce, succession, and live-in relationships while exempting Scheduled Tribes
and other constitutionally protected customary groups; notably, the opposition Congress and
Aam Aadmi Party withheld support, calling the bill anti-Muslim and rushed ahead of the 2027
state elections. Assam then passed its own UCC Bill in 2026, becoming the third state overall
and the first in India's Northeast, banning polygamy and bigamy, mandating gender-equal
inheritance, and repealing its earlier Compulsory Registration of Muslim Marriages and
Divorces Act, 2024 — while still carving out exemptions for Scheduled Tribes under Sixth
Schedule protections. Madhya Pradesh is now the fourth state moving toward a UCC, with
Chief Minister Mohan Yadav constituting a high-level committee headed by a former Supreme
Court judge, and the government indicating a bill may be introduced in the July 2026 monsoon
Assembly session, with draft provisions reportedly going further than existing personal laws
by treating children born from live-in relationships as equal heirs.

Resistance remains concentrated in the Northeast and among minority-rights groups: tribal
bodies such as the Nagaland Transparency, Public Rights Advocacy and Direct-Action
Organisation have strongly opposed UCC implementation, warning it would erode tribal
customs, while Meghalaya's Hynniewtrep Youth Council has petitioned against its adoption,
and states like Nagaland, Mizoram, and Meghalaya invoke special constitutional protections
(Articles 371A, 371G, and the Sixth Schedule) to resist a uniform code altogether. No state or
central UCC bill has been struck down by courts so far, but all enacted versions have needed
to build in tribal exemptions to survive constitutional scrutiny — making "phased, exemption-
laden, state-led implementation" rather than a single national code the practical status quo as
of mid-2026. This pattern itself is a live debate point for your committee: proponents argue it
shows incremental, federalism-respecting progress toward Article 44's goal, while critics argue
a patchwork of differing state UCCs (each carving out its own exemptions) undermines the
very "uniformity" the code claims to deliver, and risks constitutional challenges on grounds of
unequal treatment between states.
Judicial Trajectory, State-Level Implementation, and Pending
Constitutional Challenges

The Uttarakhand Pioneer: Uttarakhand's Uniform Civil Code Act, 2024 was passed by its
Legislative Assembly on 7 February 2024, received presidential assent on 12–13 March 2024,
and was formally notified into force on 27 January 2025. The law replaces religion-specific
personal laws — the Hindu Marriage Act, Muslim Personal Law, Indian Christian Marriage
Act, and Special Marriage Act with one uniform regime governing marriage, divorce,
succession, inheritance, and live-in relationships, and the state has since built a digital portal
for mandatory registration. Members of Scheduled Tribes, roughly 2.9% of the state's
population, including Jaunsari, Bhotia, Tharu, Buksa, and Raji communities remain exempt to
protect customary law under constitutional Schedules V and VI.

The Law Commission Angle: Your framing is broadly correct but worth sharpening: the 22nd
Law Commission issued a public notice on 14 June 2023 inviting fresh submissions on UCC
(after the 21st Commission's 2018 paper had called it "neither necessary nor desirable at this
stage"). The 23rd Law Commission was subsequently constituted with Justice (Retd.) Dinesh
Maheshwari as its Chairperson, tasked with examining existing laws and recommending
amendments or new legislation so by late 2025/2026 it is indeed the body reviewing the
accumulated public input, though it has not yet issued a binding central recommendation or
model code.

States That Have Followed: The "Uttarakhand Model" has spread faster than a single-state
experiment:

 Gujarat passed the Gujarat Uniform Civil Code, 2026 on 24–25 March 2026 after a
seven-hour debate, becoming the second state; it establishes a common legal framework
for marriage, divorce, succession, equal inheritance, and live-in relationships,
exempting Scheduled Tribes and other constitutionally protected groups. The bill was
drafted by the same Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai committee that authored
Uttarakhand's code.
 Assam passed its UCC Bill in 2026, becoming the third state and the first in Northeast
India; it bans polygamy and bigamy, ensures gender-equal inheritance, and standardizes
 marriage/divorce laws while exempting Scheduled Tribes, and it repeals the Assam
Compulsory Registration of Muslim Marriages and Divorces Act, 2024, replacing it
with the new uniform framework — this is the "repeal" step you referenced, though it
targeted the 2024 registration act rather than a differently-named "Marriages and
Divorces Registration Act."
 Rajasthan has constituted its own five-member drafting committee, again chaired by
Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, to prepare a Rajasthan Uniform Civil Code (RUCC),
placing it among states actively finalizing a draft.
 Madhya Pradesh has a high-level committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge
examining nine distinct legal/administrative aspects of implementation, with a bill
possibly coming in the July 2026 monsoon Assembly session; its draft reportedly goes
further than existing law by treating children from live-in relationships as equal heirs.
 Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh have publicly expressed intent to
pursue a UCC but have not yet formed drafting committees or introduced bills, so they
remain at an earlier, exploratory stage than Rajasthan or Madhya Pradesh.

Litigation Pending: Your point on court challenges is well-founded and can be sharpened with
specifics. Multiple writ petitions are pending before the Uttarakhand High Court and the
Supreme Court, including one by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind challenging the Act's override of
Muslim Personal Law; the Supreme Court in February 2025 declined to grant an interim stay
but issued notices and tagged the matters for further hearing, meaning the constitutional
questions remain unresolved rather than settled. Separately, the Uttarakhand High Court has
heard privacy-based challenges to the mandatory live-in registration provisions — with the
bench at one point remarking that registration didn't violate privacy since the relationship was
not secret — while women's rights groups have separately argued the registration and
disclosure requirements (including having to report prior live-in relationships or marriages) are
unconstitutional and enable harassment or surveillance, particularly of Muslim couples.
AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi has been a prominent voice arguing the code is effectively a
"Hindu Code" since it exempts Scheduled Tribes and leaves the Hindu Undivided Family (a
source of tax benefits) untouched, making the "uniform" label questionable in his view.\
Summary and Conclusion

UCC will advance equity, Gender correspondence and public coordination and it will improve
on the bulky legitimate issue administered by close to home laws. The aim of solidarity and
respectability for India, mentioned in the preface can only be achieved if Article 44 is
transformed into an enforceable Uniform Civil Code, which will lead to advancements in
women’s circumstances. The benefits of UCC undeniably outweigh its limitations, and the time
has come for India to implement the Uniform Civil Code for all its citizens.
Q.A.D.S.A ( Questions a Discussion Must Answer )

The Background Guide is just a document presented to aid in research and should never be
treated to be exhaustive. This is just the tip of the iceberg. It is YOUR Research which will
speak in committee.

The Consultative forum of the Model Parliament should try to cover the following topics and
try to have a consensus driven approach on the following topics.

a) Introduction – Meaning and Concept of a Uniform Civil Code

b) The History of UCC in India
c) Constituent Assembly debates pertaining to the UCC
d) What does the Constitution say?
e) Fundamental Rights vs Directive Principles of State Policy
f) Doctrinal Analysis
g) Jurisprudential status of personal laws
h) Court Judgements pertaining to the issue and there in depth analysis
i) Law Commission Recommendations
j) A discussion on the components of Family Law and their linking with a possible
Uniform Civil Code – Marriage, Divorce, Succession, Inheritance and Adoption
and Wills
k) A Discussion on Personal Laws
l) Legal Design of a UCC
m) Implications and Implementation Concerns – The Agenda at hand
n) Short understanding of International Law in this context
o) Case Studies to be understood
p) A Discussion on Comparitive Law
q) Statute Interactions
r) Study of State Level UCC implementation
s) Study of Goa Civil Code
t) Recent Developments

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All the Best! Godspeed, dear members of Parliament.