In the forming of the Indian constitution, the main leaders and Nehru himself was in support of the idea of Uniform civil code. Yet, finally, for reasons unknown, Non uniform civil code was what came to stay in the constitution to India. Exactly what were the major influences which led to this decision?

1 Answer 1


To be clear, the Indian Constitution does authorize the adoption of a Uniform Civil Code although it doesn't require the national government to adopt one. Article 44 of the Directive principles of the Constitution state that: "The State shall endeavour to secure for citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India." Thus, at the stage of the adoption of the Indian Constitution, this possibility was deferred but not ruled out.

Also, to be clear, at least in modern Indian politics, a "Uniform Civil Code" primarily means applying the same rules for family law and inheritance to members of all religions, not on instituting interstate uniformity on issues of private law outside the family law and inheritance law context. Wikipedia introduces the topic as follows:

Uniform Civil Code (IAST: Samāna Nāgrika Saṃhitā) is a proposal in India to formulate and implement secular 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. Implementation of a uniform civil code across the nation is one of the contentious promises pursued by India's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. It is an important issue regarding secularism in Indian politics and continues to remain disputed by India's Muslim groups and other conservative religious groups and sects in defence of sharia and religious customs. Personal laws are distinguished from public law and cover marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and maintenance. Meanwhile, article 25-28 of Indian constitution guarantee religious freedom to Indian citizens and allows 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.

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. Indian state of Goa was separated from British India due to colonial rule in the erstwhile Portuguese Goa and Damaon, retained a common family law known as the Goa civil code and thus being only state in India with a uniform civil code till date. 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 while exempted Christians, Jewish people, Muslims and Parsis, being identified as distinct communities from Hindus.

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. UCC was proposed twice, in November 2019 and March 2020 but was withdrawn soon both of the times without introduction in parliament. The bill is reported to be being contemplated due to differences between BJP and RSS.

Opposition to such a code arises from the concern that the Hindu majority would impose their norms on family law issues in a way that would violate the religious freedom of people who are religious minorities in India, and would detract from the concept of India as a secular and religiously neutral state. The current BJP advocated for a Uniform Civil Code are not interested in a code that would be flexible and broad enough to allow Muslim and other minority religious practices in India to be accommodated.

At a very superficial level, this didn't happen because the default outcome was a non-uniform civil code, which was the status quo before the Indian Constitution was adopted, and inertia is powerful. It is admittedly, however, much harder to put your finger on precisely why something that is floated as a possibility doesn't happen, than it is to point to a decisive cause of something that did happen.

A uniform civil code would have been a massive undertaking and required a national consensus in a nation that is exceptionally diverse in terms of both economic circumstances and moral norms. At the time that India became independent (in 1947) and the Indian Constitution was adopted a result, single most pressing issue was the tension between the Hindu community and the Muslim community that led to the contemporaneous partition of the newly independent country in a traumatic national rending that was violent and chaotic. By comparison, adopting a uniform civil code was something that idealists supported, but that nobody was deeply pressing to adopt. Instead, it would have fanned the flames of religious tensions in India.

By the time trauma of the partition was over (leaving India with a significant Muslim minority, other religious minorities, and lots of Hindu refugees from Pakistan), people simply had other things on their minds, and put the issue to bed for the most part for the next 38 years, when it again recaptured the nation's attention.

Historically, places that have adopted uniform civil codes, like the original one in France, have done so to centralize power and strengthen a national identity. But, to a great extent, the Indian independence movement building on British colonial policy, had already achieved these ends by different means. Also, uniform civil codes on family law and inheritance matters have rarely been adopted in countries where there wasn't already an informal consensus on those matters among the people of that country (something that doesn't exist in India).

It would have been beneficial to a few interests, but the benefit would have been pretty modest. The status quo is non-uniform, but not in a stark and intractable way. Nobody's private lives are deeply interfered with by outsiders in the status quo, even though there is some dissatisfaction among all religious groups with the status quo (both as applied to themselves and as applied to others). In a representative democracy, the intensity with which there is opposition to a policy has an impact, not just the raw percentages of the voting public that favor one approach as opposed to another.

The Indian independence movement sought to kick out the British from ruling them, but dissatisfaction with the civil laws that had been put in place during British rule had never been one of the main battle cries of that independence movement.

It would have required a leader pursuing it to devote a lot of political capital to an outcome whose benefit would have been as much symbolic as concrete (instead of devoting power to more concrete and urgent legal and economic issues), over all sorts of vested interests and deeply felt opinions on very personal matters.

Nobody powerful took on that task as a priority, so it didn't happen.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .