Uniform Civil Code

The Uniform Civil Code is a proposal in India to formulate and implement personal laws of
citizens which apply on all citizens equally regardless of their religion. Currently, personal laws of
various communities are governed by their religious scriptures.[1] Implementation of a uniform
civil code across the nation is one of the contentious promises pursued by India's ruling
Bharatiya Janata Party. Personal laws cover marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and
maintenance. While Articles 25-28 of the Indian Constitution guarantee religious freedom to
Indian citizens and allow religious groups to maintain their own affairs, Article 44 of the
constitution expects the Indian state to apply directive principles and common law for all Indian
citizens while formulating national policies.[2][3]

Personal laws were first framed during the British Raj, mainly for Hindu and Muslim citizens. The
British feared opposition from community leaders and refrained from further interfering within
this domestic sphere. The Indian state of Goa was separated from British India during the
colonial rule in the erstwhile Portuguese Goa and Daman, retained a common family law known
as the Goa civil code and thus was the only state in India with a uniform civil code prior to 2024.
Following India's independence, Hindu code bills were introduced which largely codified and
reformed personal laws in various sects among Indian religions like Buddhists, Hindus, Jains
and Sikhs but they exempted Christians, Jews, Muslims and Parsis.[4][5]

UCC emerged as a crucial topic of interest in Indian politics following the Shah Bano case in
1985. The debate arose when the question of making certain laws applicable to all citizens
without abridging the fundamental right to practice religious functions. The debate then focused
on the Muslim Personal Law, which is partially based on the Sharia law, permitting unilateral
divorce, polygamy and putting it among the legally applying the Sharia law. A UCC bill was
proposed twice, in November 2019 and March 2020 but was withdrawn both the times without
introduction in the parliament. The bill is reported to be under discussion between the BJP and
the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).[6] Many opposition parties and BJP's allies from the
National Democratic Alliance (NDA) have opposed the Uniform Civil Code, especially from
Northeast India, claiming that it will go against the "idea of India" and will end special privileges
of tribal communities after renewed calls by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in June 2023 about
implementing a UCC.[7][8][9]

History

British India (1858–1947)

The Lex Loci Report of October 1840 emphasised the importance and necessity of uniformity in
codification of Indian law, relating to crimes, evidences and contract but it recommended that
personal laws of Hindus and Muslims should be kept outside such codification.[10] According to
their understanding of religious divisions in India, the British separated this sphere which would
be governed by religious scriptures and customs of the various communities (Hindus, Muslims,
Christians and later Parsis).[11] These laws were applied by the local courts or panchayats when
dealing with regular cases involving civil disputes between people of the same religion; the State
would only intervene in exceptional cases. Thus, the British let the Indian public have the benefit
of self-government in their own domestic matters with the Queen's 1859 Proclamation
promising absolute non-interference in religious matters.[12][13] The personal laws involved
inheritance, succession, marriage and religious ceremonies. The public sphere was governed by
the British and Anglo-Indian law in terms of crime, land relations, laws of contract and evidence
—all this applied equally to every citizen irrespective of religion.[13]

Throughout the country, there was a variation in preference for scriptural or customary laws
because in many Hindu and Muslim communities, these were sometimes at conflict;[11] such
instances were present in communities like the Jats and the Dravidians. The Shudras, for
instance, allowed widow remarriage—completely contrary to the scriptural Hindu law.[14] The
Hindu laws got preference because of their relative ease in implementation, preference for such
a Brahminical system by both British and Indian judges and their fear of opposition from the high
caste Hindus.[14] The difficulty in investigating each specific practice of any community, case-by-
case, made customary laws harder to implement. Towards the end of the nineteenth century,
favouring local opinion, the recognition of individual customs and traditions increased.[13]

The Muslim Personal law (based on Sharia law), was not strictly enforced as compared to the
Hindu law. It had no uniformity in its application at lower courts and was severely restricted
because of bureaucratic procedures. This led to the customary law, which was often more
discriminatory against women, to be applied over it. Women, mainly in northern and western
India, often were restrained from property inheritance and dowry settlements, both of which the
Sharia provides.[15] Due to pressure from the Muslim elite, the Shariat law of 1937 was passed
which stipulated that all Indian Muslims would be governed by Islamic laws on marriage, divorce,
maintenance, adoption, succession and inheritance.[15]

Legislative reforms
Certain Hindu customs prevalent at the time discriminated against women by depriving them of
inheritance, remarriage and divorce. Their condition, especially that of Hindu widows and
daughters, was poor due to this and other prevalent customs.[16][17] The British and social
reformers like Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar were instrumental in outlawing such customs by
getting reforms passed through legislative processes.[18] Since the British feared opposition
from orthodox community leaders, only the Indian Succession Act 1865, which was also one of
the first laws to ensure women's economic security, attempted to shift the personal laws to the
realm of civil. The Indian Marriage Act 1864 had procedures and reforms solely for Christian
marriages.[19]

There were law reforms passed which were beneficial to women like the Hindu Widow
Remarriage Act of 1856, Married Women's Property Act of 1923 and the Hindu Inheritance
(Removal of Disabilities) Act, 1928, which in a significant move, permitted a Hindu woman's right
to property.[16]

The call for equal rights for women was only at its initial stages in India at that time and the
reluctance of the British government further deterred the passing of such reforms. The All India
Women's Conference (AIWC) expressed its disappointment with the male-dominated legislature
and Lakshmi Menon said in an AIWC conference in 1933,[18] "If we are to seek divorce in court,
we are to state that we are not Hindus, and are not guided by Hindu law. The members in the
Legislative assembly who are men will not help us in bringing any drastic changes which will be
of benefit to us." The women's organisations demanded a uniform civil code to replace the
existing personal laws, basing it on the Karachi Congress resolution which guaranteed gender-
equality.[18]

The passing of the Hindu Women's right to Property Act of 1937, also known as the Deshmukh
bill, led to the formation of the B. N. Rau committee, which was set up to determine the
necessity of common Hindu laws. The committee concluded that it was time of a uniform civil
code, which would give equal rights to women keeping with the modern trends of society but
their focus was primarily on reforming the Hindu law in accordance with the scriptures. The
committee reviewed the 1937 Act and recommended a civil code of marriage and succession; it
was set up again in 1944 and send its report to the Indian Parliament in 1947.[18]

The Special Marriage Act, which gave the Indian citizens an option of a civil marriage, was first
enacted in 1872. It had a limited application because it required those involved to renounce their
religion and was applicable mostly to non-Hindus. The later Special Marriage (Amendment) Act,
1923 permitted Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains to marry either under their personal law or
under the act without renouncing their religion as well as retaining their succession rights.[20]
Post-colonial (1947–1985)

Hindu Code Bill and addition to the

Directive Principles

Jawaharlal Nehru supported a

uniform civil code but he had to
face opposition from other leaders

The Indian Parliament discussed the report of the Hindu law committee during the 1948–1951
and 1951–1954 sessions. The first Prime Minister of the Indian republic, Jawaharlal Nehru, his
supporters and women members wanted a uniform civil code to be implemented.[21] As Law
Minister, B. R. Ambedkar was in charge of presenting the details of this bill. It was found that the
orthodox Hindu laws were pertaining only to a specific school and tradition because monogamy,
divorce and the widow's right to inherit property were present in the Shashtras.[21] Ambedkar
recommended the adoption of a uniform civil code.[22][23] Ambedkar's frequent attack on the
Hindu laws and dislike for the upper castes made him unpopular in the parliament. He had done
research on the religious texts and considered the Hindu society structure flawed. According to
him, only law reforms could save it and the Code bill was this opportunity.[24] He thus faced
severe criticism from the opposition. Nehru later supported Ambedkar's reforms but did not
share his negative view on Hindu society.[24]

The Hindu bill itself received much criticism and the main provisions opposed were those
concerning monogamy, divorce, abolition of coparcenaries (women inheriting a shared title) and
inheritance to daughters. The first President of the country, Rajendra Prasad, opposed these
reforms; others included the Congress party president Vallabhbhai Patel, a few senior members
and the Hindu fundamentalists within Indian National Congress.[18][25] The women members of
the parliament, who previously supported this, in a significant political move reversed their
position and backed the Hindu law reform; they feared allying with the fundamentalists would
cause a further setback to their rights.[16]

Thus, a lesser version of this bill was passed by the parliament in 1956, in the form of four
separate acts, the Hindu Marriage Act, Succession Act, Minority and Guardianship Act and
Adoptions and Maintenance Act. It was decided to add the implementation of a uniform civil
code in Article 44 of the Directive principles of the Constitution specifying, "The State shall
endeavour to secure for citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India."[26] This
was opposed by women members like Rajkumari Amrit Kaur and Hansa Mehta. According to
academic Paula Banerjee, this move was to make sure it would never be addressed.[27] Aparna
Mahanta writes, "failure of the Indian state to provide a uniform civil code, consistent with its
democratic secular and socialist declarations, further illustrates the modern state's
accommodation of the traditional interests of a patriarchal society".[27]

Later years and Special Marriage Act

The Hindu code bill failed to control the prevalent gender discrimination. The law on divorce
were framed giving both partners equal voice but majority of its implementation involved those
initiated by men. Since the Act applied only to Hindus, women from the other communities
remained subordinated. For instance, Muslim women, under the Muslim Personal Law, could not
inherit agricultural land.[27] Nehru accepted that the bill was not complete and perfect, but was
cautious about implementing drastic changes which could stir up specific communities. He
agreed that it lacked any substantial reforms but felt it was an "outstanding achievement" of his
time.[24] He had a significant role in getting the Hindu Code bill passed and laid down women-
equality as an ideal to be pursued in Indian politics, which was eventually accepted by the
previous critics of the bill.[24] Uniform civil code, for him, was a necessity for the whole country
but he did not want it to forced upon any community, especially if they were not ready for such a
reform. According to him, such a lack of uniformity was preferable since it would be ineffective if
implemented. Thus, his vision of family law uniformity was not applied and was added to the
Directive principles of the Constitution.[24]

The Special Marriage Act, 1954, provides a form of civil marriage to any citizen irrespective of
religion, thus permitting any Indian to have their marriage outside the realm of any specific
religious personal law.[20] The law applied to all of India, except Jammu and Kashmir. In many
respects, the act was almost identical to the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, which gives some idea
as to how secularised the law regarding Hindus had become. The Special Marriage Act allowed
Muslims to marry under it and thereby retain the protections, generally beneficial to Muslim
women, that could not be found in the personal law. Under this act polygamy was illegal, and
inheritance and succession would be governed by the Indian Succession Act, rather than the
respective Muslim Personal Law. Divorce also would be governed by the secular law, and
maintenance of a divorced wife would be along the lines set down in the civil law.[28]

Significance of Shah Bano

case
After the passing of the Hindu Code bill, the personal laws in India had two major areas of
application: the common Indian citizens and the Muslim community, whose laws were kept
away from any reforms.[29] The frequent conflict between secular and religious authorities over
the issue of uniform civil code eventually decreased, until the 1985 Shah Bano case. Bano was a
73-year-old woman who sought maintenance from her husband, Muhammad Ahmad Khan. He
had divorced her after 40 years of marriage by triple Talaaq (saying "I divorce thee" three times)
and denied her regular maintenance; this sort of unilateral divorce was permitted under the
Muslim Personal Law. She was initially granted maintenance by the verdict of a local court in
1980. Khan, a lawyer himself, challenged this decision, taking it to the Supreme Court, saying
that he had fulfilled all his obligations under Islamic law. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of
Shah Bano in 1985 under the "maintenance of wives, children and parents" provision (Section
125) of the All India Criminal Code, which applied to all citizens irrespective of religion. It further
recommended that a uniform civil code be set up, stating that a uniform civil code would
promote national integration by eliminating conflicting loyalties to laws with divergent
ideologies.[30] Besides her case, two other Muslim women had previously received maintenance
under the Criminal Code in 1979 and 1980.[15]

Rajiv Gandhi's Congress party

lost state-level elections in
1985 after it endorsed the
Supreme Court's decision
supporting Bano but later
reversed its stand.

The Shah Bano case soon became nationwide political issue and a widely debated
controversy.[29] Many conditions, like the Supreme court's recommendation, made her case have
such public and political interest. After the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, minorities in India, with Muslims
being the largest, felt threatened with the need to safeguard their culture.[29] The All India Muslim
Board defended the application of their laws and supported the Muslim conservatives who
accused the government of promoting Hindu dominance over every Indian citizen at the expense
of minorities. The Criminal Code was seen as a threat to the Muslim Personal Law, which they
considered their cultural identity.[15] According to them, the judiciary recommending a uniform
civil code was evidence that Hindu values would be imposed over every Indian.[15]

The orthodox Muslims felt that their communal identity was at stake if their personal laws were
governed by the judiciary.[15] Rajiv Gandhi's Congress government, which previously had the
support of Muslim minorities, lost the local elections in December 1985 because of its
endorsement of the Supreme Court's decision.[31] The members of the Muslim board, including
Khan, started a campaign for complete autonomy in their personal laws. It soon reached a
national level, by consulting legislators, ministers and journalists. The press played a
considerable role in sensationalizing this incident.[15]

An independent Muslim Member of Parliament proposed a bill to protect their personal law in
the parliament. The Congress reversed its previous position and supported this bill while the
Hindu right, the Left, Muslim liberals and women's organisations strongly opposed it. The
Muslim Women's (Protection of Rights on Divorce) was passed in 1986, which made Section 125
of the Criminal Procedure Code inapplicable to Muslim women. The debate now centred on the
divinity of their personal law. A Muslim member of parliament made a claim emphasising the
importance of the cultural community over national by saying that only a Muslim judge could
intercede in such cases.[31] Bano later in a statement said that she rejected the Supreme Court's
verdict. It also led to the argument defining a woman's right according to her specific community
with political leader Jaffar Sharief saying, "today, in the Shah Bano's case, I am finding that many
people are more sympathetic towards Muslim women than their own women. This is very
strange."[31]

The politicisation led to argument having two major sides: the Congress and Muslim
conservatives versus the Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, and the Left. In 1987, the
Minister of Social Welfare, Rajendra Kumari Bajpai, reported that no women were given
maintenance by the Wakf Board in 1986. Women activists highlighted their legal status and
according to them, "main problem is that there [are] many laws but women are dominated not by
secular laws, not by uniform civil laws, but by religious laws."[31] The legal reversal of introducing
the Muslim Women law significantly hampered the nationwide women's movement in the
1980s.[31]

Current status and opinions

Definition of the proposal

UCC is meant to replace various laws currently applicable to different communities which are
inconsistent with each other. These laws include the Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act,
Indian Christian Marriages Act, Indian Divorce Act, Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act. Meanwhile,
certain codes like Sharia (Islamic laws) are not codified and solely based upon their religious
scriptures.[1]

The proposals in UCC include monogamy, equal rights for son and daughter over inheritance of
paternal property, and gender and religion neutral laws with regards to will, charity, divinity,
guardianship and sharing of custody. These proposals may not result in much difference to the
status of Hindu society, as they have already been applicable on Hindus through the Hindu Code
Bills for decades.[32]

Points of view
The debate for a uniform civil code, with its diverse implications and concerning secularism in
the country, is one of the most controversial issues in twenty-first century Indian politics.[33] The
major problems for implementing it are the country's diversity and religious laws, which not only
differ sect-wise, but also by community, caste and region.[33]

India is a 'secular' nation which means a separation between religion and state matters.
However, 'secularism' in India is defined as equality of all religions and practitioners of all
religions before the law. Currently, with a mix of different civil codes, citizens are treated
differently by law and by courts based on their religion. The rights of Hindu women are far more
progressive (and constitutional, by virtue of being gender-neutral and secular) than those of
Muslim women, who are governed by Muslim Personal Law, which is based on the Sharia law.

Women's rights groups have said the issue of a uniform civil code is only based on the rights and
security of women, irrespective of its politicisation.[33] The arguments for it are: its mention in
Article 44 of the Constitution, need for strengthening the unity and integrity of the country,
rejection of different laws for different communities, importance for gender equality, and
reforming the archaic personal laws of Muslims—which allow unilateral divorce and polygamy.
India is thus among the nations that legally apply the Sharia law. According to Qutub Kidwai, the
Muslim Personal Law is "Anglo-Mohammadan" rather than solely Islamic.[33] The Hindu
nationalists view this issue in the concept of the Hindu law, which they say, is secular and equal
to both sexes.[33] In the country, demanding a uniform civil code can be seen negatively by
religious authorities and secular sections of society because of identity politics.[33] The Sangh
Parivar and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), one of the two major political parties in India, have
taken up this issue to gain Hindu support.[33] The BJP was the first party in the country to
promise UCC if elected to power.[33]

The Indian state of Goa abides by Goa Civil Code. It is a set of civil laws, originally the
Portuguese Civil Code, which continues to be implemented even after the Indian annexation of
the state in 1961.[34]

Sikhs and Buddhists objected to the wording of Article 25 which terms them as Hindus with
personal laws being applied to them.[35] However, this article also guarantees the right of the
members of the Sikh faith to bear a Kirpan.[36]

In October 2015, the Supreme Court of India asserted the need for a uniform civil code and said:
"This cannot be accepted, otherwise every religion will say it has a right to decide various issues
as a matter of its personal law. We don't agree with this at all. It has to be done through a decree
of a court".[37] On 30 November 2016, British Indian intellectual Tufail Ahmad unveiled a 12-point
draft proposal, citing no effort by the government since 1950. The Law Commission of India
stated on August 31, 2018, that a uniform civil code is "neither necessary nor desirable at this
stage" in a 185-page consultation paper, adding that secularism cannot contradict the plurality
prevalent in the country.[38][39] On June 14, 2023, the 22nd Law Commission of India requested
input from religious organizations and the general public regarding the matter of implementing a
Uniform Civil Code (UCC). According to a notification released by the commission, individuals
who are interested and willing can express their opinions within a 30-day time frame.[40]

Indian society in pre-independence era had many other considerations like socio-economic
status, jati and gotra etc. in case of marriages. While the Hindu Code Bills and other Acts wiped
out all such practices in Hindu, Jains, Sikh, Buddhist, Parsi and Christian communities, some
conservative sections of these communities had been demanding amendments to their
Marriage Acts.[41]

Critics of UCC continue to oppose it as a threat to religious freedom. They consider the abolition
of religious laws to be against secularism, and the UCC as a means for BJP to target Muslims
under the pretense of progressivism. However, BJP members state that they promote UCC as a
means of achieving religious equality and equal rights for women by fending off unfair religious
laws.[42][43]

Legal expert and rights groups suggest amending gender discriminatory laws, rather than
implementing a uniform civil code. An example of such a law is Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which applies to women of all communities without the need for a
uniform civil code.[5]

On 17 July 2023, Justice Krishna Murari, who recently concluded his tenure in the Supreme
Court of India, said that "uniformity in anyway is beneficial", but before the implementation of the
Uniform Civil Code, extensive deliberations and consultations, on a large scale, with the general
public should take place.[44]

Legal status and prospects

UCC had been included in BJP's manifesto for the 1998 and 2019 elections, and was even
proposed for introduction in the Parliament for the first time in November 2019 by Narayan Lal
Panchariya. Amid protests by other MPs, the bill was soon withdrawn for making certain
amendments.[45][43] The bill was brought for a second time by Kirodi Lal Meena in March 2020,
but was not introduced again.[46] As per reports which emerged in 2020, the bill's specifics are
being contemplated by the BJP due to its topical differences with the RSS.[6][47]

A plea was filed in the Delhi High Court which sought establishment of a judicial commission or
a high level expert committee to direct the central government to prepare a draft of UCC in three
months. In April 2021, a request was filed to transfer the plea to the Supreme Court so that filing
of more such pleas throughout various high courts doesn't bring inconsistency throughout India.
The draft would further be published on the website for 60 days to facilitate extensive public
debate and feedback.[32]

Reactions
Many political parties, ranging from opposition parties to the BJP's own allies in the NDA, have
objected to calls for a uniform civil code by the BJP.[48][7] Furthermore, the idea of the UCC has
been opposed by many NGOs and organizations.

A group from Nagaland warned that it will burn the houses of all the 60 legislators in the state if
the UCC gets implemented in the state. The Nagaland Transparency, Public Rights Advocacy and
Direct-Action Organisation opposed the idea of the UCC, saying it will erode local customs and
traditions of tribes. The Hynniewtrep Youth Council from the state of Meghalaya said they will
request the Law Commission not to implement the UCC.[49]

See also

All India Muslim Personal Law Board

Hindu code bills
Religious law
Family law
Secularism in India
Sharia

References

Citations

1. Anand, Utkarsh (15 March 2021). "Has the

Supreme Court set the ball rolling for a
 Uniform Civil Code?" (https://www.hindusta
ntimes.com/india-news/has-the-supreme-c
ourt-set-the-ball-rolling-for-a-uniform-civil-c
ode-101615802810671.html) . Hindustan
Times. Retrieved 21 April 2021.
2. Shimon Shetreet; Hiram E. Chodosh
(December 2014). Uniform Civil Code for
India: Proposed Blueprint for Scholarly
Discourse (https://books.google.com/book
s?id=y-pIDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT4) . Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-807712-1.
Retrieved 22 August 2020.
3. "Article 44 in the Constitution of India 1949"
(https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1406604/) .
Indian Kanoon. Retrieved 22 August 2020.
4. Rina Verma Williams (2006). Postcolonial
Politics and Personal Laws. Oxford
University Press. pp. 18, 28, 106, 107, 119.
ISBN 0-19-568014-6.
5. Dasgupta, Sravasti (6 July 2023). "BJP
Equates UCC With Gender Justice. But Can
It End Discrimination In-Built in Personal
Laws?" (https://thewire.in/women/bjp-ucc-
with-gender-justice-discrimination-personal
-laws) . The Wire. New Delhi. Retrieved
6 July 2023.
6. Ramchandran, Smriti Kak (6 August 2020).
"BJP, RSS hope for consensus on Uniform
Civil Code" (https://m.hindustantimes.com/
india-news/bjp-rss-hope-for-consensus-on-
ucc/story-ASFagZCCQPEIfQT59HMgkK.ht
ml) . The Hindu. Retrieved 22 August 2020.
7. Dasgupta, Sravasti (3 July 2023). "NDA
Partners from Northeast Oppose BJP's
Push for Uniform Civil Code" (https://thewir
e.in/politics/nda-partners-in-northeast-opp
ose-bjps-push-for-uniform-civil-code) . The
Wire. Retrieved 6 July 2023.
8. Staff, The Wire (27 June 2023). "In Poll
Bound Madhya Pradesh, PM Modi Rakes up
Triple Talaq, UCC and 'Appeasement' " (http
s://web.archive.org/web/2023071522225
1/https://thewire.in/politics/in-poll-bound-
madhya-pradesh-pm-modi-rakes-up-triple-ta
laq-ucc-and-appeasement) . The Wire. New
Delhi. Archived from the original (https://the
wire.in/politics/in-poll-bound-madhya-prade
sh-pm-modi-rakes-up-triple-talaq-ucc-and-a
ppeasement) on 15 July 2023. Retrieved
16 July 2023.
 9. Staff, The Wire (27 June 2023). "In Poll
Bound Madhya Pradesh, PM Modi Rakes up
Triple Talaq, UCC and 'Appeasement' " (http
s://thewire.in/politics/in-poll-bound-madhya
-pradesh-pm-modi-rakes-up-triple-talaq-ucc-
and-appeasement) . The Wire. Retrieved
16 July 2023.
10. Banerjee, Anil Chandra (1984). English Law
in India (https://books.google.com/books?i
d=7MXExXXb9usC&pg=PA134) . Abhinav
Publications. p. 134. ISBN 978-81-7017-
183-6. Archived (https://web.archive.org/w
eb/20170217053133/https://books.google.
com/books?id=7MXExXXb9usC&pg=PA13
4) from the original on 17 February 2017.
Retrieved 26 September 2016.
11. Sarkar & Sarkar 2008, p. 2–3.
12. Chavan & Kidwai 2006, p. 66–67.
13. Sarkar & Sarkar 2008, p. 263.
14. Sarkar & Sarkar 2008, p. 93.
15. Lawrence & Karim 2007, p. 262–264.
16. Chavan & Kidwai 2006, p. 87–88.
17. Chavan & Kidwai 2006, p. 94–100.
18. Chavan & Kidwai 2006, p. 83–86.
19. Samaddar 2005, p. 50–51.
20. Singh, Shiv Sahai (1 January 1993).
Unification of Divorce Laws in India (https://
archive.org/details/unificationofdiv0000sin
g) . Deep & Deep Publications. pp. 7 (http
s://archive.org/details/unificationofdiv0000
sing/page/7) , 287–288. ISBN 978-81-
7100-592-5.
21. Chavan & Kidwai 2006, p. 90, 94–100.
22. Jaffrelot, Christophe (14 August 2003).
"Ambedkar And The Uniform Civil Code" (htt
p://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/a
mbedkar-and-the-uniform-civil-code/22106
8) . Outlook India. Archived (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20160414123716/http://ww
w.outlookindia.com/website/story/ambedk
ar-and-the-uniform-civil-code/221068)
from the original on 14 April 2016.
Retrieved 29 March 2016.
23. Pathak, Vikas (1 December 2015).
"Ambedkar favoured common civil code" (ht
tp://www.thehindu.com/news/national/am
bedkar-favoured-common-civil-code/article
7934565.ece) . The Hindu. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/2016112818451
4/http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/
ambedkar-favoured-common-civil-code/arti
cle7934565.ece) from the original on 28
November 2016. Retrieved 29 March 2016.
24. Sarkar & Sarkar 2008, p. 480–491.
25. Som, Reba (1 February 1994). "Jawaharlal
Nehru and the Hindu Code: A Victory of
Symbol over Substance?". Modern Asian
Studies. Cambridge University Press. 28
(1): 165–194.
doi:10.1017/S0026749X00011732 (https://
doi.org/10.1017%2FS0026749X0001173
2) . ISSN 0026-749X (https://www.worldca
t.org/issn/0026-749X) . JSTOR 312925 (htt
ps://www.jstor.org/stable/312925) .
26. Purandare, Vaibhav (8 September 2017).
"How Muslim fears were allayed, and the
UCC became a directive principle" (http://ti
mesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/how-musl
im-fears-were-allayed-and-the-ucc-became-
a-directive-principle/articleshow/60417611.
cms) . The Times of India. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/2017091101420
9/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/
how-muslim-fears-were-allayed-and-the-ucc
-became-a-directive-principle/articleshow/6
0417611.cms) from the original on 11
September 2017. Retrieved 13 September
2017.
27. Samaddar 2005, p. 56–59.
28. "The Special Marriage Act, 1954" (https://in
diankanoon.org/doc/4234/) .
indiakanoon.org. Archived (https://web.arch
ive.org/web/20200721081233/https://india
nkanoon.org/doc/4234/) from the original
on 21 July 2020. Retrieved 16 September
2020.
29. Lawrence & Karim 2007, p. 265–267.
30. "Law Commission seeks public, religious
bodies' views on Uniform Civil Code" (http
s://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/la
w-commission-seeks-public-religious-bodie
s-views-on-uniform-civil-code-10168676932
6963.html) . 15 June 2023.
31. Samaddar 2005, p. 60–63.
32. Ojha, Drishti (11 April 2021). "Plea In
Supreme Court Seeks Transfer Of Plea For
Uniform Civil Code From Delhi High Court
To SC" (https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/s
upreme-court-uniform-civil-code-delhi-high-
court-transfer-of-case-ucc-172432) .
LiveLaw. Retrieved 21 April 2021.
33. Chavan & Kidwai 2006, p. 13–20.
34. "Call to implement Goan model of civil
code" (https://web.archive.org/web/201405
08030759/http://www.newindianexpress.c
om/cities/chennai/article138136.ece) .
New Indian Express. 15 May 2012. Archived
from the original (http://newindianexpress.
com/cities/chennai/article138136.ece) on
8 May 2014. Retrieved 22 October 2013.
35. Boyle, Kevin; Sheen, Juliet (7 March 2013).
Freedom of Religion and Belief: A World
Report (https://books.google.com/books?i
d=JxgFWwK8dXwC) . Routledge. pp. 191–
192. ISBN 978-1-134-72229-7. Archived (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/2016051318164
9/https://books.google.com/books?id=Jxg
FWwK8dXwC) from the original on 13 May
2016. Retrieved 16 September 2015.
36. The Constitution of India, Right to Freedom
of religion, Article 25 (https://web.archive.o
rg/web/20140621134720/http://lawmin.ni
c.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf) (PDF),
archived from the original (http://lawmin.ni
c.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf) (PDF) on 21
June 2014
37. Anand, Utkarsh (13 October 2015), Uniform
Civil Code: There's total confusion, why
can't it be done, SC asks govt (http://indian
express.com/article/india/india-news-indi
a/uniform-civil-code-supreme-court-asks-g
ovt-why-cant-it-be-done-tell-us-your-plan) ,
New Delhi: The Indian Express, archived (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/2015101500025
9/http://indianexpress.com/article/india/in
dia-news-india/uniform-civil-code-supreme-
court-asks-govt-why-cant-it-be-done-tell-us-
your-plan/) from the original on 15 October
2015, retrieved 13 October 2015
38. "Muslim intellectual proposes a
revolutionary Uniform Civil Code" (http://ww
w.thestatesman.com/india/muslim-intellect
ual-proposes-a-revolutionary-uniform-civil-c
ode-1480508995.html) . The Statesman.
IANS. 30 November 2016. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/2016120102141
6/http://www.thestatesman.com/india/mus
lim-intellectual-proposes-a-revolutionary-uni
form-civil-code-1480508995.html) from
the original on 1 December 2016. Retrieved
30 November 2016.
39. Ahmad, Tufail (30 November 2016). "My
blueprint for the Uniform Civil Code" (http://
www.dailyo.in/politics/uniform-civil-code-m
uslims-triple-talaq-indian-constitution-supre
me-court/story/1/14293.html) . DailyO.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201
61130163734/http://www.dailyo.in/politic
s/uniform-civil-code-muslims-triple-talaq-in
dian-constitution-supreme-court/story/1/14
293.html) from the original on 30
November 2016. Retrieved 30 November
2016.
40. "Law Commission seeks views on Uniform
Civil Code: What is the UCC and the debate
around it" (https://indianexpress.com/articl
e/explained/explained-law/law-commission
-uniform-civil-code-8671382/) . 18 June
2023.
41. Anand, Hardik (28 May 2018). "Amend
Hindu Marriage Act to ban same-gotra
marriages: Khaps" (https://www.hindustanti
mes.com/india-news/amend-hindu-marriag
e-act-to-ban-same-gotra-marriages-khaps/s
tory-50prtuWUWkd6DEOc4IRnNN.html) .
Hindustan Times. Retrieved 13 August
2021.
42. "Uniform Civil Code: Another nail in the
coffin to satisfy the facade of party
manifesto" (https://www.indialegallive.com/
top-news-of-the-day/news/uniform-civil-cod
e-another-nail-in-the-coffin-to-satisfy-the-fac
ade-of-party-manifesto/) . India Legal. 23
July 2020. Retrieved 14 September 2020.
43. Jigeesh, AM (6 December 2019). "After
objections, BJP member withdraws Bill for
UCC" (https://www.thehindubusinessline.co
m/news/national/after-objections-bjp-mem
ber-withdraws-bill-for-ucc/article30217193.
ece) . The Hindu Business Line. Retrieved
22 August 2020.
44. "Uniformity is Good but Uniform Civil Code
Needs Large-Scale Consultations: Ex-SC
Judge Murari" (https://www.news18.com/in
dia/uniformity-is-good-but-uniform-civil-cod
e-needs-large-scale-consultations-ex-sc-jud
ge-krishna-murari-8352169.html) . 17 July
2023.
45. Chari, Seshadri (16 August 2019). "Modi
govt has been working for a Uniform Civil
Code and we didn't even notice. Until now"
(https://theprint.in/opinion/modi-govt-has-b
een-working-for-a-uniform-civil-code-and-w
e-didnt-even-notice-until-now/278053/) .
The Print. Retrieved 22 August 2020.
46. Joy, Shemin (13 March 2020). "BJP MP
once again does not introduce Uniform Civil
Code Bill" (https://www.deccanherald.com/
national/north-and-central/bjp-mp-once-ag
ain-does-not-introduce-uniform-civil-code-bi
ll-813445.html) . New Delhi: Deccan Herald.
Retrieved 14 September 2020.
47. Sharma, Vibha (6 August 2020). "UCC next
on Modi govt agenda?" (https://m.tribunein
dia.com/news/nation/ucc-next-on-modi-go
vt-agenda-123130) . The Tribune. Retrieved
22 August 2020.
48. " 'Meant to Distract People': Opposition
Parties on PM Modi's Uniform Civil Code
Pitch" (https://web.archive.org/web/20230
715222140/https://thewire.in/politics/nare
ndra-modi-uniform-civil-code-opposition-pa
rty) . The Wire. 28 June 2023. Archived
from the original (https://thewire.in/politic
s/narendra-modi-uniform-civil-code-opposit
ion-party) on 15 July 2023. Retrieved
16 July 2023.
49. "Protests against UCC build up in three
northeastern States" (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20230715224043/https://www.thehi
ndu.com/news/national/other-states/arson
-threat-against-ucc-in-nagaland/article6703
3755.ece) . The Hindu. Guwahati. 2 July
2023. Archived from the original (https://w
ww.thehindu.com/news/national/other-stat
es/arson-threat-against-ucc-in-nagaland/art
icle67033755.ece) on 15 July 2023.
Retrieved 16 July 2023.

Bibliography

Chavan, Nandini; Kidwai, Qutub Jehan

(2006). Personal Law Reforms and
Gender Empowerment: A Debate on
Uniform Civil Code (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=QIMp5ctu_ngC) . Hope
India Publications. ISBN 978-81-7871-
079-2.
Sarkar, Sumit; Sarkar, Tanika (2008).
Women and Social Reform in Modern
India: A Reader (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=GEPYbuzOwcQC&pg=PA
2) . Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-
0-253-22049-3.
Samaddar, Ranabir (2005). The Politics
of Autonomy: Indian Experiences (https://
books.google.com/books?id=kcVh_QInS
D0C&pg=PT17) . SAGE Publications.
ISBN 978-0-7619-3453-0.
 Larson, Gerald James, ed. (2001),
Religion and Personal Law in Secular
India: A Call to Judgment (https://books.
google.com/books?id=HGV3noHZ1QM
C) , Indiana University Press, ISBN 0-
253-21480-7
Lawrence, Bruce B; Karim, Aisha (2007).
On Violence: A Reader (https://books.go
ogle.com/books?id=32SGA4EV9EEC&p
g=PA262) . Duke University Press.
ISBN 978-0-8223-9016-9.

Further reading

Shourie, Arun (2005). A Secular Agenda:

For Saving Our Country, for Welding It.
 New Delhi, India: Rupa. ISBN 978-8-
19001-993-4
Jaffrelot, Christophe (7 August 2003).
"Nehru and the Hindu Code Bill" (https://
www.outlookindia.com/books/nehru-an
d-the-hindu-code-bill-news-221000) .
Outlook.

External links

"Muslim women fight instant divorce" (ht

tp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/35
30608.stm) from BBC
"So Do We Want A UCC?" (http://www.ou
tlookindia.com/article.aspx?227793)
article by Dilip D'Souza from Outlook
 "Law Commission's report on uniform
civil code not before 2018" (https://ww
w.hindustantimes.com/india-news/law-
commission-s-report-on-uniform-civil-co
de-not-before-2018/story-hizRvHNIJtvLT
CUdyuHgZL.html) article by Jatin
Gandhi (https://www.hindustantimes.co
m/author/jatin-gandhi-10160831056976
4) from Hindustan Times

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Uniform_Civil_Code&oldid=1213397439"
This page was last edited on 12 March 2024, at
20:19 (UTC). •
Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless
otherwise noted.