The Lift Line
“A close reading of the Uttarakhand UCC reveals a law that confuses uniformity with equality and conflates regulation with protection.”
Why This Editorial Matters for Your Exam
Audrey Dmello, director, and Flavia Agnes, founder, of Majlis, a Mumbai legal centre for women and children, examine the only UCC in force and list what a gender-just code needs. With several States drafting codes, this is the most practical frame for any question on Article 44.
GS Paper 2: Directive Principles; government policies; issues relating to women. GS Paper 1: Women and social empowerment; diversity of India.
Background and Context
Where the UCC stands, as the authors describe it.
| State | Status |
|---|---|
| Uttarakhand | Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand, 2024 in force since 2025 (from 27 January 2025); the first State code |
| Gujarat, Assam, Madhya Pradesh | Codes awaiting Presidential assent |
| Maharashtra, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh | Drafting committees; for context, Maharashtra’s, under Justice Ranjana Desai, was set up on 9 July 2026, and Justice R.C. Chavan resigned from it on 19 September, raising concerns about its consultative process |
| Goa | Has long had a common civil code, the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867 |
For context, on 13 September 2026, Union Home Minister Amit Shah said a UCC would be implemented in all 21 BJP- and NDA-ruled States before the 2029 Lok Sabha elections.
Why Presidential assent? Marriage, divorce, succession and related matters fall in Entry 5 of the Concurrent List. A State law on a Concurrent subject that conflicts with a central law prevails in the State only if it receives the President’s assent (Article 254(2)).
Key milestones in the UCC debate. Shah Bano (1985) and Sarla Mudgal (1995) urged a UCC; the 21st Law Commission (2018) said it was “neither necessary nor desirable at this stage”; the 22nd Law Commission sought public views in 2023.
The Analysis
1. Surveillance, not protection. Compulsory registration of live-in relationships, with notice to police and parents, exposes couples. Registration, if any, should be optional, confidential and bring benefits: maintenance, legitimacy of children, inheritance.
2. A civil law should not jail. Criminalising extra-judicial dissolution of marriage (up to three years) and punishing non-registration with fines or prison will hit the poor and marginalised hardest.
3. Courts for every divorce means a bottleneck. Family courts already have lakhs of pending cases. Customary divorces are quick and cheap; mutual-consent divorces need an administrative route.
4. Economic security is the missing core. The authors want enforceable remedies for desertion (automatic maintenance, injunctions against disposing of assets), a minimum share of property that cannot be willed away (as Muslim law already protects), marital property rights that value unpaid care work, and maintenance for second wives married in good faith, as courts have held.
5. Keep gender-specific maintenance. Under most personal laws and the Special Marriage Act, only women can claim maintenance; given unequal power within marriage, the authors want this retained.
6. The silent privilege. The code says nothing about the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), a tax advantage available only to Hindus.
7. Process. Consultations with women’s, Adivasi, queer, transgender and disability rights groups should be a constitutional necessity, not a formality.
Data and Institutions Vault
Prelims-grade facts:
Constitution:
- Article 44 (DPSP): State shall endeavour to secure a UCC throughout India.
- Family law: Entry 5, Concurrent List; conflicting State law needs President’s assent (Article 254(2)).
- Article 342: Scheduled Tribes; Uttarakhand’s code excludes STs.
Cases and reports:
- Shah Bano (1985); Sarla Mudgal (1995); Shayara Bano (2017, instant triple talaq).
- 21st Law Commission (2018): UCC “neither necessary nor desirable at this stage”.
- Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005: daughters made coparceners.
Status:
- Uttarakhand UCC in force since 2025 (27 January 2025); Goa: Portuguese Civil Code, 1867.
⚠️ Watch the trap: Goa has had a common civil code since Portuguese rule, so Uttarakhand’s is the first UCC enacted by a State after Independence, not the first common civil code in India.
The Debate
For the authors’ view. Equality means substantive protection. A code that registers and penalises but does not secure women’s property, maintenance and housing is uniform without being just.
The complications. Supporters argue that a single code ends discrimination across communities, that registration creates a record that protects women, and that Article 44 is a constitutional direction. Critics of the UCC idea itself worry about minority and tribal customary law.
The balanced verdict. Whatever the route (one code or reformed personal laws), the test is the same: does it increase women’s security? Consultative drafting, civil rather than penal enforcement, and economic rights are the core.
How to Think About This
Distinguish form from substance. “Uniform” describes form; “just” describes substance. In any question on the UCC, list what the law does for women (maintenance, property, residence, divorce), not only what it unifies.
Diagram-in-Words
Takeaway Box
- Peg (context): Amit Shah’s 13 September statement; Maharashtra committee resignation (19 September).
- Thesis: uniformity is not equality; regulation is not protection.
- Fixes: optional registration, civil not penal, economic rights, consultation.
- Law: Article 44; Entry 5 Concurrent List; Article 254(2) assent.
- Precedents: Shah Bano (1985), Sarla Mudgal (1995), Law Commission (2018).
Sources: The Indian Express, Law Commission of India, Government of Uttarakhand, UCC portal
Source: Towards a Gender-Just Uniform Civil Code: What Uttarakhand's Code Gets Wrong — Ujiyari.com | Free UPSC & State PCS Editorial Analysis
