Article 44 Uniform Civil Code for the Citizens
Article 44 is the shortest and most contested Directive Principle. It directs the State to endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India. For seventy-five years it produced only judicial observations. Since 2025 the position has changed rapidly — Uttarakhand brought its UCC into force in January 2025, and Gujarat, Assam and Madhya Pradesh have each passed their own during 2026, alongside Goa's pre-independence civil code.
Article 44 — Bare Text
Explanation — Four Words That Carry the Weight
Already common to all citizens: the criminal law (BNS, BNSS, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), contract law, property transfer law, company and commercial law, and evidence law.
Still governed by personal law: marriage, divorce, maintenance, guardianship, adoption, succession and inheritance — through the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Hindu Succession Act 1956 (applying to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs), the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1937, the Indian Christian Marriage Act 1872, the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act 1936, and the Indian Succession Act 1925.
Already available as a voluntary common option: the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which permits any two Indians to marry irrespective of religion, with succession then governed by the Indian Succession Act.
Classification and legislative competence
- Article 44 is grouped among the Liberal-Intellectual Directive Principles, alongside Articles 45, 48, 49, 50 and 51.
- Subject-matter competence lies in Entry 5 of the Concurrent List — marriage and divorce, infants and minors, adoption, wills, intestacy and succession, joint family and partition. Both Parliament and State Legislatures can therefore legislate, which is precisely why State-level UCCs are constitutionally possible.
- Where a State law is repugnant to a central law on a Concurrent subject, it needs the President's assent under Article 254(2) to prevail in that State.
Article 371A protects Nagaland's religious and social practices, Naga customary law and procedure, and ownership and transfer of land — no Act of Parliament applies unless the State Assembly so decides. Article 371G gives Mizoram the same protection. The Sixth Schedule empowers Autonomous District Councils in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram to make laws on marriage, divorce, inheritance and social customs. Every State UCC enacted so far has also exempted Scheduled Tribes. These provisions are the strongest structural constraint on the word "throughout the territory of India".
Amendment to Article 44
The Constituent Assembly Debate
Draft Article 35 (now Article 44) was debated on 23 November 1948, and the exchange still frames the argument.
- K. M. Munshi — a UCC is essential to national consolidation and to women's equality; personal laws had kept women in a subordinate position
- Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar — a common code would promote harmony and unity, and much of Indian law was already common
- Dr. B. R. Ambedkar — India already had a virtually uniform code covering almost every relationship except marriage and succession; the only remaining sphere was small
- Mohamed Ismail Sahib — moved that any group be entitled to retain its personal law
- Naziruddin Ahmad — personal law is part of religion; change must come with the consent of the community concerned
- B. Pocker Sahib Bahadur and Mahboob Ali Baig — a UCC would create discontent and interfere with religious practice
- All the amendments seeking exemption were negatived, and Article 44 was adopted
No one need be apprehensive that the State will impose the Code all at once. Parliament may well provide that the Code shall apply only to those who make a declaration that they are prepared to be bound by it — so that in the initial stage the application may be purely voluntary. — Dr. B. R. Ambedkar's reply in the Constituent Assembly, 23 November 1948, paraphrased
Ambedkar's assurance envisaged a possible opt-in model — a code that citizens could choose to be governed by. That is, in substance, what the Special Marriage Act, 1954 later provided. Whether a UCC should be mandatory or optional is therefore not a new question; it was raised at the moment of drafting. Noting this in a Mains answer shows engagement with the primary debate rather than the secondary commentary.
Judicial Observations on Article 44
The Supreme Court cannot enforce Article 44, and has said so. But it has repeatedly commented on it — usually while deciding a personal-law dispute.
| Case | Facts and observation |
|---|---|
| Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) | A divorced Muslim woman's claim to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC was upheld, the Court holding that the secular provision applies regardless of personal law. Chief Justice Y. V. Chandrachud observed with regret that Article 44 had remained "a dead letter". Parliament responded with the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. |
| Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995) | On Hindu husbands converting to Islam to contract a second marriage. The Court held the second marriage void and bigamous, and Justice Kuldip Singh asked the Government to place before the Court the steps taken towards a UCC. |
| Ahmedabad Women Action Group v. Union of India (1997) | A challenge to several personal-law provisions as discriminatory. The Court declined to intervene, holding that reform of personal laws is a matter of legislative policy for Parliament, not judicial direction — the necessary counterweight to the observations in Shah Bano and Sarla Mudgal. |
| Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) | Clarified that Sarla Mudgal was not retrospective, and reiterated that the Court's observations on a UCC were not a direction to enact one. |
| Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001) | Upheld the 1986 Act by reading it down — a Muslim husband must make a reasonable and fair provision for his divorced wife's whole life, not merely for the iddat period. Reform achieved by interpretation rather than by a uniform code. |
| John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003) | Struck down Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which restricted charitable bequests by Christians, as violative of Article 14. Chief Justice V. N. Khare observed that it was a matter of regret that Article 44 had not been given effect to. |
| Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) | Set aside instant triple talaq by 3:2. Reform of a specific practice, achieved without a uniform code. Parliament followed with the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. |
| Jose Paulo Coutinho v. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira (2019) | On the applicability of the Goan civil code to Goans domiciled outside Goa. The Court described Goa as a "shining example" of an Indian State with a uniform civil code, and noted that the founders' hope in Article 44 had not been fulfilled. |
Two things must be held together. The Court has repeatedly urged implementation of Article 44 — Shah Bano, Sarla Mudgal, John Vallamattom, Jose Paulo Coutinho. But it has never directed Parliament to enact a UCC, and in Ahmedabad Women Action Group (1997) and Lily Thomas (2000) it made clear this lies in the legislative domain. A Mains answer that cites only the first line of cases misrepresents the position.
Law Commission Reports
- 21st Law Commission — Consultation Paper on Reform of Family Law (31 August 2018). Concluded that a uniform civil code "is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage", and recommended instead codification and reform of individual personal laws to remove discriminatory provisions, so that "discrimination rather than difference" becomes the target. It observed that cultural diversity cannot be compromised to the extent that the urge for uniformity itself becomes a reason for threat to the territorial integrity of the nation.
- 22nd Law Commission. Issued a fresh public notice in June 2023 seeking views from the public and recognised religious organisations on the UCC, and again invited comments subsequently. Its report on the subject has not been published.
Current Affairs — The State-Level UCCs
Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 → Uttarakhand
in force 27 Jan 2025 → Gujarat
24 March 2026 → Assam
May 2026 → Madhya Pradesh
21 July 2026
| State | Instrument | Position |
|---|---|---|
| Goa | Portuguese Civil Code, 1867, continued after liberation in 1961 | The only Indian territory with a pre-independence common civil code. Applies to all Goans regardless of religion, with some community-specific exceptions. Described by the Supreme Court in Jose Paulo Coutinho (2019) as a "shining example". Features include compulsory registration of marriage and communion of assets — property acquired is jointly owned by the spouses. |
| Uttarakhand | Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand Act, 2024 | Passed by the Assembly in February 2024; brought into force on 27 January 2025. The first State in independent India to enact a comprehensive UCC. Drafted by a five-member expert committee headed by Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai. Scheduled Tribes are exempted. |
| Gujarat | Gujarat Uniform Civil Code, 2026 | A committee headed by Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai submitted its final report in March 2026; the Bill was passed on 24 March 2026 after a debate of over seven hours. Applies throughout the State and to Gujarat residents living outside it. Second State post-independence. |
| Assam | Uniform Civil Code (Assam) Bill, 2026 | Passed in May 2026 — the third State, and the first in the North-East. Includes compulsory registration of marriage and divorce within 60 days, gender-equal inheritance, live-in registration and a polygamy penalty. Scheduled Tribes exempted, and Sixth Schedule areas kept outside its purview. |
| Madhya Pradesh | Madhya Pradesh UCC Bill, 2026 | Passed on 21 July 2026 — the fourth State post-independence, and the fifth jurisdiction counting Goa. Drafted by a seven-member committee headed by Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, resting on four pillars: marriage, divorce, succession and live-in relationships. |
Common features of the State codes
- Compulsory registration of marriages and divorces, within a prescribed period.
- Prohibition of polygamy, with penal consequences.
- Uniform grounds and procedure for divorce across communities.
- Equal inheritance rights for sons and daughters, and defined shares for spouse, children and parents.
- Uniform minimum age of marriage and prohibition of practices such as halala and iddat restrictions.
- Mandatory registration of live-in relationships, with penalties for non-registration — the most contested provision.
- Exemption of Scheduled Tribes, in every State code enacted so far.
The Debate — Both Sides
This is a live political and legal controversy. A high-scoring answer sets out both positions accurately rather than arguing for one.
- Gender justice. Several personal-law rules on inheritance, divorce and guardianship disadvantage women; uniform rules would remove them at one stroke
- Article 14 and 15 consistency. Citizens in identical civil situations are governed by different rules solely by reason of religion
- Constitutional mandate. Article 44 is an express directive, and the Court has repeatedly noted its non-implementation
- Simplification. A single code reduces litigation arising from conflict of personal laws and from conversion used to change legal status
- Secularism. Marriage and succession are secular activities — the State may regulate them under Article 25(2)(a) without touching essential religious practice
- Precedent. Hindu law was codified in 1955–56 over similar objections; Goa has functioned with a common code for over a century
- Article 25 and 26. Personal law is claimed as part of religious practice and denominational autonomy
- Federal and tribal carve-outs. Articles 371A and 371G and the Sixth Schedule protect customary law; every State code has exempted STs, so "uniform throughout the territory" is already qualified
- 21st Law Commission (2018) concluded a UCC was "neither necessary nor desirable at this stage", recommending reform within personal laws instead
- Multiple State codes risk producing several different "uniform" codes rather than one — arguably the opposite of Article 44's object
- Live-in registration with criminal penalties raises proportionality questions after Puttaswamy (2017) and Navtej Singh Johar (2018) on decisional autonomy and intimate association
- Process. Concerns that legislation of this reach should follow select-committee scrutiny and wide consultation
Article 44 is a politically contested subject with live litigation. Do not campaign for a side. A strong answer: (1) states the constitutional text and its non-justiciability; (2) sets out the Constituent Assembly debate including Ambedkar's opt-in suggestion; (3) traces the judicial line accurately, distinguishing observation from direction; (4) presents both sides of the policy argument; and (5) concludes on process — that the question is less whether to reform than how: uniformity by legislation, reform within personal laws as the 21st Law Commission proposed, or an expanded opt-in code on the Special Marriage Act model.
Key Dates and Facts
Article 44 at a Glance — Mind Map
Prelims Traps to Guard Against
- Article 44 has never been amended.
- It uses "citizens", not "persons", and the verb is "endeavour" — the weakest in Part IV.
- Article 44 is a Liberal-Intellectual principle, not a Gandhian or Socialistic one.
- A UCC covers civil personal law only — marriage, divorce, maintenance, adoption, guardianship, succession. Criminal, contract and commercial law are already uniform.
- The subject falls in Entry 5 of the Concurrent List, which is why States can legislate.
- Goa's code is the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867, a pre-independence instrument — Goa did not enact a UCC after 1947.
- Uttarakhand's UCC was passed in February 2024 but came into force on 27 January 2025.
- The 21st Law Commission (2018) said a UCC was "neither necessary nor desirable at this stage" — it did not endorse one.
- The Supreme Court has never directed Parliament to enact a UCC. In Ahmedabad Women Action Group (1997) it expressly left the matter to the legislature.
- Articles 371A and 371G, and the Sixth Schedule, protect customary law in Nagaland, Mizoram and specified tribal areas.
- The Special Marriage Act, 1954 already provides a voluntary common law of marriage for any two Indians.
Mains Angle
Question (GS-II, 15 marks, 250 words): "Article 44 speaks of a uniform civil code 'throughout the territory of India'; what has emerged instead is a set of State civil codes." Examine the constitutional position on the Uniform Civil Code and the implications of State-level enactment.
Structure the answer around three pivots:
- The constitutional position.
Article 44 — the State shall endeavour to secure a uniform civil code for citizens throughout the territory of India; a non-justiciable Directive Principle under Article 37.
The Constituent Assembly adopted it over objections, with Ambedkar suggesting a possible opt-in model — substantially realised later in the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Competence lies in Entry 5, Concurrent List, so both Parliament and States may legislate. - The judicial record — urging without directing.
Shah Bano (1985) calling Article 44 a "dead letter"; Sarla Mudgal (1995); John Vallamattom (2003); Jose Paulo Coutinho (2019) on Goa.
Against these, Ahmedabad Women Action Group (1997) and Lily Thomas (2000) placing personal-law reform squarely in the legislative domain.
Reform has in fact proceeded piecemeal — Danial Latifi (2001), Shayara Bano (2017) and the 2019 Act — rather than through a code. - The State-level turn and its implications.
Goa (1867), Uttarakhand (in force 27 January 2025), Gujarat (March 2026), Assam (May 2026), Madhya Pradesh (July 2026).
Arguments in favour: gender justice, Article 14 consistency, marriage and succession as secular activity.
Arguments for caution: the 21st Law Commission's 2018 conclusion; Articles 371A, 371G and the Sixth Schedule; ST exemptions in every code; proportionality concerns over live-in registration after Puttaswamy; and the paradox that multiple State codes may produce plural "uniform" codes.
Conclusion: the operative question has shifted from whether to reform to who reforms and how — a central code, State codes, reform within personal laws as the Law Commission proposed, or an expanded opt-in framework. Whichever route is taken, Article 44's own words point towards a single code rather than several, and towards persuasion and consultation rather than imposition, which was the assurance on which the Article was adopted.
Key Takeaways
- Article 44 directs the State to endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India. It is a Liberal-Intellectual Directive Principle, non-justiciable under Article 37, and has never been amended.
- A UCC concerns civil personal law only — marriage, divorce, maintenance, adoption, guardianship and succession. Criminal, contract and commercial law are already uniform, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954 already offers a voluntary religion-neutral option.
- In the Constituent Assembly on 23 November 1948, Munshi, Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar and Ambedkar supported the Article; Muslim members sought exemptions, which were negatived. Ambedkar suggested the Code might initially apply only to those who declared themselves bound by it.
- The Supreme Court has urged implementation — Shah Bano (1985) calling Article 44 a "dead letter", Sarla Mudgal (1995), John Vallamattom (2003), Jose Paulo Coutinho (2019) — but has never directed it, holding in Ahmedabad Women Action Group (1997) that this is a matter of legislative policy.
- The 21st Law Commission (2018) concluded that a UCC was "neither necessary nor desirable at this stage" and recommended reform within personal laws; the 22nd Law Commission sought fresh public views in June 2023.
- Position as of 2026: Goa under the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867; Uttarakhand (in force 27 January 2025), Gujarat (24 March 2026), Assam (May 2026) and Madhya Pradesh (21 July 2026). All the State codes exempt Scheduled Tribes, and Articles 371A, 371G and the Sixth Schedule remain structural limits on any national code.
