India has been a witness to the concept of Uniform Civil Code (UCC) which has been resurfacing every few years, mostly as a binary: either because of pursuing one specific code leaving the personal Laws abandoned, or protecting the religious identity of the varied communities leading to Family Law being fragmented forever. However, none of the options seem to be of much benefit for Indians. Therefore, a better or reasonable idea seems to be residing in India’s own legal History, which is to let rights be kept away from religion. By stating, so the notion is certainly not to disregard the core Constitutional principles of India, but to ensure a rather structured framework to achieve religious sustainability and public uniformity. For example, let the cultural significance/rituals of Nikah, or Saptapadi, or Church wedding to exist as it is, but attend to the legal consequences of divorce, maintenance, custody, marriage, and inheritance on a same parlance, irrespective of the religion. Therefore, this is not majorly a compromise, but an honest and correct application of Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, which directs the state to endeavor the establishment of Uniform Civil Code (UCC) for the public at large.

Today, there are en number of cases which have brought the Family Courts of India to attend to several complex and unconventional situations/questions to be dealt with. The answer to the same is never straightforward or easy, which makes it even more difficult for sustenance of fariness and upholding of the legal rights, while ensuring that it does not go against the public policy. The current scenario of the country is such that today India parallelly follows several marriage and succession Acts like Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937, Parsi customs, Christian Succession rules and the Special Marriage Act of 1954 which serves as a secular option for civil marital rights between different religions. One of the examples was a recent one in March 2026, wherein a case was presented before the Apex Court stating that the provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937 act as a disadvantage for Muslim women with regards to inheritance. During the same, the Court noted that by nullifying the provisions of the Act is not going to solve the problem at hand, rather create a legal vaccum, and that a comprehensive and a clearer framework was the need of the hour. The same would not just require the Judiciary but the Executive wing of the country as well to participate in the process. It further stated that the complexity has not been just abated, but has developed into new challenges.

The said issue was not ignored by the Constituent Assembly itself, thus it developed a precise and efficient foundation for the same. This very foundation led to the creation of Articles 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution, which provides the freedom of religion to not just the citizens of the country but also to the foreign nationals. They further went onto inculcate Article 44 which placed the UCC within the section of Directive Principles of State Policy, which is a non-justiciable set of rules. Due to this, it became rather a goal than a command, specifically due to the Constitution framer’s futuristic outlook of reform, which is to avoid imposition and ensure adaptation of the same through public consensus. Such a limitation seems to portray strength than a set-back. Because one of India’s greatest asset is its pluralism which itself poses as a founding commitment and the idea was that any amendment is supposed to go hand-in-hand instead of uprooting the whole cultural existence, which would be more like separating the heart from its body.

Nevertheless, the conditions and complex situations that presented itself before the judiciary post-independence has repeatedly failed the people it was meant to protect, especially the women. The level of adversity was very much seen when the Supreme Court had to intercede to secure the maintenance rights of a divorced Muslim woman in the case of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985. Similarly, the Court questioned the men exploiting the legal loopholes in personal laws by converting to other religion to solely to contract a second marriage, without dissolving the first one in Sarla Mugdal v. Union of India, 1995. In John Vallamattom v. Union of India, 2003, it invalidated the legality of Christians bequeathing property for Charity, a colonial-era restriction that was burdening the community with regards to peaceful transfer of property. Again in 2017, the infamous triple talaq was held to be unconstitutional in the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India, 2017 by the Apex court, that later was codified into a Law by the Parliament by establishing the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. Hence, every case and legal battle in the family court that has reached the Supreme Court became a symptom of the very disease of such rights being decided by the personal Law, which is consequently established based on the citizen’s birth.

After witnessing all of this, the Uniform Civil Code that not only aims for unity, and validity of individual rights has been facing the real brunt of resistance by the Indian citizens. Such resistance is not only the output of religious conservatism but is also restricted by the legitimate tribal and federal concerns. The Concurrent List in the seventh schedule of the Indian Constitution covers marriage and divorce, custom is secured for the Scheduled Tribes, and the major fear or significant concern of the minorities is the eradication of their cultural practices instead of peaceful harmony due to such code proposed and drafted by the majority. But Uttarakhand stands out as a prime example with its imposition of the Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhan Act, 2024, wherein the rules of marriage, divorce and succession have been brought under a single umbrella of regulation. It has got an instructive tendency while dealing with such matters, likewise it has made the registration of live-in relationships compulsory in a way validating such relationships but with penal consequences of non-compliance, the same provision has drawn criticism from the people calling it intrusive and a tool for social policing rather than a provision protecting the socio-cultural rights. Thus, the said code became an element rather painted as a modern code attempting to ensure equality, losing its credibility the moment it overreached the private lives of the citizens of Uttarakhand.

However, this is exactly where the Uniform Civil Code earns its place and essence by keeping religion where it belongs that is for solemnization, ritualistic practices, religious festivals and other cultural inheritance ceremonies. Enable uniformity in what the State seriously faces the challenge and necessarily needs to regulate. It includes compulsory registration of marriage, minimum age for marriage, domestic violence protection, divorce, maintenance, guardianship principles, custody, succession of safeguards, adoption, limitation periods, digital registration, mediation and family courts. But if looked upon closely, most of these aspects are very much attended to by the Special Marriage Act of 1954 with a secular and civil option along with the integrity of religious marriage and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 which has been in application across all faiths. Therefore, at this moment, by extending this logic, the focus has to be shifted consistently to aim for evolution and not upheaval.

Comparatively, there are many other democratic states that has followed this principle of separation. For instance, the European jurisdiction ordering a prerequisite registration of a civil marriage before the ceremonious unification of the couple; thereby enabling a system that carries the legal weight of validity and protection while the wedding is still governed by the traditional faith of the partners. Such an application may partially work in India and the country need not apply any single model in generic since, but the fundamental principle must be given the predominance which is to uphold the State’s neutrality on rights and generosity on ritual.

Time and again Courts have reiterated and confirmed that such reforms aiming for equality squarely fall within gender-justice actions and they certainly do no override or offend the personal Law protection guaranteed under Articles 25-26 of the Indian Constitution. Because, at the end of the day religious freedom does come under the subject matter of public order, morality and other legal rights. A code that is built to ensure religious harmony and equality is formed through a vide public discourse during the 22^nd Law Commission held in 2023, state-wise piloting and clear indication with regards to what is religious and what stays civil is more likely to sustain both Constitutional validity and social trust than a single all-India Act imposed overnight. Thus, the real test for Article 44 had never been whether a country like India could suffer the adversity of erasing its cultural diversity, but a question about India’s assurance to guarantee equal rights to its citizens. And a harmonized Family Law can definitely enable that.