The Lift Line

A code that places women at the centre does not need to tell anyone how to pray.

Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam

GS 1 questions on women in society and GS 2 questions on constitutional provisions increasingly ask candidates to move beyond abstract framing to specific reform. This editorial names the reforms a code would deliver and lists the case law and statutes that already sit around them, which is the scaffold a good answer needs.

GS Paper 1: Role of women and women’s organisation; population and associated issues; effects of globalisation on Indian society; social empowerment, communalism, regionalism and secularism.

GS Paper 2: Salient features of Indian society, diversity of India; important aspects of governance; welfare schemes for vulnerable sections; issues relating to development and management of social sector.

Concept Meaning Why it is testable
Uniform Civil Code, Article 44 Directive Principle asking the State to endeavour to secure a UCC for its citizens The constitutional anchor of the debate
Personal law Family law governing marriage, divorce, maintenance, adoption and succession, applied by religious community The field a UCC would enter, and the reason each reform matters differently in each community
Compulsory marriage registration Statutory requirement that every marriage be registered irrespective of ceremony A specific reform the piece names, and one that is uneven across states

Background and Context

The framing. In an op-ed in Hindustan Times, Kausar Jahan, chairperson of the Delhi State Hajj Committee, argues that the Uniform Civil Code debate is best conducted as an argument about women’s equal civil rights rather than as a contest between religion and secularism.

The two case-law anchors. Shah Bano (1985) held that a divorced Muslim woman was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; the response was the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) invalidated instant triple talaq, and Parliament enacted the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, criminalising the pronouncement.

The constitutional anchor. Article 44 of the Constitution, a Directive Principle of State Policy, asks the State to endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for its citizens throughout the territory of India.

The named reforms. Equal inheritance rights for daughters and widows; a common marriage framework across communities including registration and consent standards; protection during divorce, including maintenance and residence; compulsory marriage registration.

The Analysis

1. The framing shift is the analytical move. For most of its life the UCC debate has been about whether India should have a code. That framing produces a doctrinal argument between secularism and plurality that neither side wins. The productive framing is about what the code should do. When the code is defined by reforms, equal inheritance, common marriage framework, protection in divorce, compulsory registration, the debate becomes tractable and the coalition for it expands.

2. The Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 is the precedent worth reading closely. The 2005 amendment gave daughters equal coparcenary rights in Hindu Undivided Family property. That reform was executed within a community and moved the property rights of daughters closer to those of sons. It shows that women-centred reform can be delivered through legislation without a comprehensive code, and it is a template that could be extended.

3. The Shah Bano and Shayara Bano trajectory shows the difficulty and the direction. Shah Bano was reversed politically; Shayara Bano produced a statutory response that criminalised triple talaq. The two moments together demonstrate that personal law reform is possible, that it is contested at every step, and that the vehicle can be case law, legislation or a combination. A progressive code would consolidate that trajectory rather than replace it.

4. Compulsory registration is the specific under-recognised reform. Registration turns marriage into an event of record. It protects women in divorce, in inheritance disputes and in claims on the state. Despite Supreme Court direction, marriage registration remains uneven across states. A central statute could remove that unevenness without touching the ceremony of marriage, and would deliver a large share of the practical benefit a UCC promises.

5. The counter-argument deserves an answer, not a dismissal. A code driven by a woman-centred equality argument still passes through political vehicles that will use it for other ends. That risk is real and does not vanish because the framing is progressive. The answer is not to abandon the reform but to insist that the code be judged on the four named reforms and their effect on women, which is the criterion the author proposes.

Data and Institutions Vault

Prelims-grade facts:

The constitutional and legal framework:

  • Article 44 of the Constitution of India, a Directive Principle of State Policy, asks the State to endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code.
  • Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion, subject to public order, morality and health.
  • The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended in 2005, granted daughters equal coparcenary rights in HUF property.
  • The Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides a civil marriage option irrespective of religion.

The case law and statutes on personal law reform:

  • Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) held that a divorced Muslim woman was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure.
  • That provision is now carried by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), enacted in 2023, which replaced the CrPC with effect from 1 July 2024.
  • The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 followed Shah Bano.
  • Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) invalidated talaq-e-biddat.
  • The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 criminalised the pronouncement of instant triple talaq.

The comparators and current position:

  • Goa follows a common civil code adapted from the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867.
  • Uttarakhand enacted a state Uniform Civil Code that came into force in 2025.
  • Compulsory registration of marriage was recommended by the Law Commission and directed in Seema v. Ashwani Kumar (2006), and is implemented unevenly across states.

⚠️ Watch the trap: A Uniform Civil Code is not the same as the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Special Marriage Act provides a civil marriage option available to any two persons regardless of religion, but it does not replace the personal laws of succession, adoption, guardianship or maintenance for those who marry under it in all respects. Answers that treat the SMA as a partial UCC without noting its limits are missing an examinable distinction.

The Debate

FOR (a progressive UCC delivers real reform): The reforms are specific, women’s equal inheritance, common marriage framework, protection in divorce, compulsory registration. Each corrects a demonstrable inequality across communities. The 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act shows that women-centred statutory reform is deliverable, and the code consolidates that direction into a coherent statute.

AGAINST (the code will be captured): A code driven by any framing still passes through political vehicles that will use it for majoritarian ends. Personal law reform has historically worked better community by community than by uniform legislative override, and the Directive Principles were designed to be aspirations rather than instruments for coercion.

Balanced verdict: Both concerns are real. The productive answer is to draft the code as a menu of reforms with women’s civil equality as the constitutional anchor, enact equal inheritance across communities on the 2005 model, make marriage registration compulsory nationally, codify a common maintenance and residence framework in divorce, and keep religious ceremony and identity outside the code. Reform judged by its effect on women is defensible; a code judged by its uniformity is a slogan.

How to Think About This

When a debate has repeated the same terms for decades, ask whether the terms are the problem. UCC arguments oscillate between abstract secularism and abstract plurality, and neither side wins because neither is discussing a specific reform. The productive move is to name the reforms and to ask which of them would improve women’s lives most, at what cost, and with what political feasibility. That analytical discipline is available in every social-sector question, and it is what separates a policy answer from a slogan.

Diagram-in-Words

Frame: women’s civil equality not religion versus secularism Equal inheritance HSA 2005 model daughters, widows Marriage framework age, consent, harmonised across communities Divorce protection maintenance, residence Shah Bano to now Compulsory registration Seema 2006 directive central statute Outside the code: religious ceremony and identity Article 25 protection continues civil and ecclesiastical separated
The code is a set of four reforms, not a single instrument. Each reform is defensible on its own terms; the frame at the top holds them together and the box at the bottom limits what the code is being asked to do.

Takeaway Box

Lift line: A code that places women at the centre does not need to tell anyone how to pray.

Prelims hooks: Article 44 UCC, Article 25 religious freedom; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Hindu Succession Act, 1956 amended 2005; Shah Bano 1985; Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986; Shayara Bano v. UoI 2017; Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019; Section 125 CrPC; Seema v. Ashwani Kumar 2006; Goa civil code from Portuguese Civil Code, 1867; Uttarakhand UCC in force 2025.

Mains keywords: women’s civil equality, personal law reform, equal inheritance, common marriage framework, protection in divorce, compulsory marriage registration, religious ceremony outside the code.

Ethics and interview angle: A public servant advising on a Uniform Civil Code has to hold two commitments together, equal treatment of citizens and constitutional plurality. What is the honest way to combine them in a specific reform proposal?

PYQ linkage: Connects to previous UPSC Mains questions on the Uniform Civil Code and secularism, on women’s rights in personal law, and on Directive Principles versus Fundamental Rights.

Sources: Hindustan Times op-ed on a progressive UCC

Source: The Case for a Progressive Uniform Civil Code: Women's Equality First — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis