Towards a Uniform Civil Code in India: A Comparative Analysis of the Uttarakhand UCC Bill and its Potential for Nationwide Implementation

I. Introduction

The concept of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is embedded in Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, which states that “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.”² This provision, though part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, has long fuelled debate over its practical implementation in a pluralistic and religiously diverse nation. The framers of the Constitution envisaged the UCC as a means to promote legal uniformity in personal matters such as marriage, divorce, adoption, and inheritance, thereby reinforcing the principles of equality, secularism, and national integration. However, more than seven decades after the Constitution’s adoption, the UCC remains unrealized at the national level, primarily due to political resistance and religious sensitivities.

The recent passage of the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code Bill, 2024, represents a significant turning point in India’s legislative history. Uttarakhand has become the first post-independence Indian state to enact a comprehensive law aimed at establishing uniformity in civil law across religious communities.³ This legislative initiative has sparked national debate on the constitutionality, desirability, and feasibility of extending such a code across the Indian Union. It also raises vital questions about the balance between religious freedom under Article 25 and the directive to secure a UCC under Article 44.

Previous judicial interpretations and Constituent Assembly debates have revealed the constitutional tensions that arise in implementing a uniform civil framework. The judiciary has repeatedly called for the realization of the UCC in landmark cases, although courts have also acknowledged the complexities involved in reconciling personal law with fundamental rights.⁴ Historical resistance from minority communities, particularly the Muslim community, stems from concerns over the erosion of religious identity and autonomy in personal matters.⁵

Against this background, this paper critically examines the Uttarakhand UCC Bill as a potential model for nationwide implementation. It begins by tracing the constitutional origins and debates surrounding Article 44, then analyzes judicial responses, followed by a detailed review of the Uttarakhand Bill’s provisions. The study concludes by evaluating the implications of this model law for national adoption and suggests pathways for a consultative, inclusive approach to reform. Through this inquiry, the paper argues that a well-structured, gender-neutral, and culturally sensitive UCC could promote legal equality while respecting India's pluralistic ethos.

II. Constitutional origins and assembly debates

The idea of a Uniform Civil Code was a subject of intense deliberation during the drafting of the Indian Constitution. Article 44, as it stands today, emerged from Draft Article 35, which was introduced to promote legal uniformity in civil affairs such as marriage, divorce, succession, and adoption.⁶ Despite being placed in Part IV of the Constitution, the framers considered it vital for ensuring national integration and equal treatment of citizens irrespective of religion. However, this provision sparked vehement opposition, particularly from Muslim members of the Constituent Assembly who feared that state intervention in personal laws would infringe on religious freedom guaranteed under Article 25.⁷

Shri Mohamed Ismail, a representative from Madras, opposed Draft Article 35 on the grounds that personal laws were inextricably linked to religion and culture. He argued that compelling communities to abandon their personal laws would amount to interference in religious freedom.⁸ Similarly, Naziruddin Ahmad warned that empowering the state to override religiously grounded personal laws would violate constitutional guarantees and could lead to resentment and unrest.⁹ He emphasized that what even British colonial rulers had avoided should not be undertaken by an independent Indian state.

Another vocal critic, Mahboob Ali Baig, contended that Muslim personal law was divinely ordained and formed a part of Islamic religious practice.¹⁰ According to him, laws governing marriage, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, and waqf were rooted in the Quran and the Hadith, and therefore beyond legislative tampering. Baig cautioned that any attempt to alter or replace these personal laws would be interpreted as an infringement on the fundamental right to religious freedom under Article 25.

Despite these protests, several members supported the inclusion of a UCC as a necessary step toward modernization and national unity. K.M. Munshi argued that the secular nature of the state justified legal reform in the sphere of personal laws.¹¹ He pointed out that several Muslim-majority countries such as Turkey and Egypt had already implemented uniform codes, even at the expense of personal religious laws. Munshi observed that matters like inheritance and marriage were social in nature and not inherently religious, and hence could be regulated by secular legislation without violating religious freedom.¹²

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Constitution, attempted to strike a conciliatory note. While defending Article 44, he assured minority communities that its implementation would be gradual and consensual.¹³ Ambedkar emphasized that Article 44 merely empowered the state to legislate a UCC; it did not impose an obligation to do so immediately or unilaterally. He stated, “No government can exercise its power in such a manner as to provoke the Muslim community to rise in rebellion.”¹⁴

In response to concerns that UCC might override personal laws against the will of minorities, Ambedkar assured that future legislations under Article 44 would not be coercive but based on public consensus and constitutional safeguards.¹⁵ Ultimately, the motion to delete or dilute Draft Article 35 was defeated, and it was adopted as Article 44 of the Constitution of India.

These debates underscore the constitutional vision of uniformity in civil law while acknowledging India’s complex religious fabric. The UCC was never meant to be an instrument of majoritarianism but rather a progressive ideal to be pursued in accordance with the principles of secularism, equality, and gradual reform.

III. Judicial interpretation and role of the courts

Over the decades, the Indian judiciary has repeatedly engaged with the issue of the Uniform Civil Code, navigating the complex intersection of religious freedoms and constitutional mandates. While the courts have consistently upheld the right to religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26, they have also emphasized that such rights must yield to the broader goals of secularism, social justice, and gender equality. The judiciary has often lamented the delay in implementing Article 44 and has urged the legislature to move forward on this front, albeit within constitutional limits.

The earliest and most significant judicial opinion on the subject came in the case of State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali, where the Bombay High Court upheld the constitutionality of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946.¹⁶ The petitioner had challenged the Act on the ground that it discriminated against Hindus by criminalizing bigamy for them while allowing it for Muslims, thus violating Article 14 (equality before the law). The Court, however, ruled that personal laws do not qualify as “laws” under Article 13 and are therefore not subject to judicial review on the grounds of fundamental rights.¹⁷ Chief Justice M.C. Chagla emphasized that the State could undertake social reform in a phased manner and was not obliged to introduce reforms for all communities simultaneously.¹⁸

Justice Gajendragadkar, concurring, observed that Article 44 implies the coexistence of diverse personal laws until a UCC is framed and that piecemeal reform does not amount to unconstitutional discrimination.¹⁹ He also clarified that abolishing polygamy among Hindus while retaining it among Muslims did not violate Article 14, as the classification was reasonable and based on different stages of social reform.

Later, in Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, the Supreme Court reignited the national debate on UCC.²⁰The Court held that a Muslim husband was liable to pay maintenance to his divorced wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of personal law. In a landmark opinion, Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud noted that Article 44 had remained a "dead letter" and emphasized the urgency of enacting a UCC to promote national integration and gender justice.²¹ The ruling led to widespread protests from the Muslim clergy, ultimately resulting in the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which diluted the effect of the decision.

In Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of religious conversion and bigamy.²² The Court held that a Hindu man who converts to Islam solely to contract a second marriage without divorcing his first wife would be guilty of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment strongly advocated for a UCC, with Justice Kuldip Singh observing that a common civil code would help remove contradictions and promote secularism.²³

More recently, in John Vallamattom v. Union of India, the Supreme Court struck down Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, which imposed restrictions on Christians in bequeathing property for religious or charitable purposes.²⁴ The Court reiterated the importance of a UCC in securing equality before the law and eliminating discriminatory provisions in personal laws.²⁵

Through these cases, the judiciary has carved a path that affirms the validity of progressive reform in personal law and has consistently highlighted the constitutional ideal of uniformity in civil code. However, courts have also recognized that such reforms must come through legislative action and not judicial fiat. The decisions reflect a delicate balance between respecting religious autonomy and upholding constitutional values such as equality, secularism, and social reform.

IV. The uttarakhand ucc bill, 2024

The enactment of the Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand Bill, 2024, marked a watershed moment in Indian legal history, as it is the first attempt by a post-independence Indian state to codify a comprehensive set of uniform personal laws applicable to all citizens irrespective of religion, caste, or creed.²⁶ The Bill represents a bold legislative step toward the realization of Article 44 of the Indian Constitution and has reignited national conversations around the feasibility of implementing a UCC at the national level.

The Uttarakhand UCC Bill was passed by the Legislative Assembly on February 7, 2024, after extensive deliberations and consultations with stakeholders.²⁷ The initiative was spearheaded by the state's law commission, which submitted a detailed report recommending a unified set of civil laws concerning marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, and live-in relationships. The Bill applies uniformly to all residents of Uttarakhand, with the exception of Scheduled Tribes, who are protected under Article 371 of the Constitution.²⁸

One of the most significant features of the Bill is its focus on gender justice and legal uniformity. It provides for the compulsory registration of marriages, a provision aimed at curbing child marriage and fraudulent marital claims.²⁹ Polygamy is prohibited, and unilateral divorce practices such as triple talaq are declared invalid.³⁰ The Bill establishes common grounds for divorce, including cruelty, desertion, and mutual consent, applicable to all communities. It also ensures equal rights of inheritance for sons and daughters, thereby eliminating the patriarchal biases inherent in several personal laws, especially under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law and Sharia-based Islamic inheritance rules.³¹

Another noteworthy provision relates to live-in relationships. The Bill mandates the registration of such relationships and extends legal recognition to children born out of these unions, ensuring they are entitled to maintenance and inheritance rights.³² This represents a forward-looking acknowledgment of evolving social realities and the need for legal protections outside the bounds of formal marriage.

Furthermore, the Bill provides for uniform adoption laws, applicable to all communities, including Muslims for whom adoption is not recognized under traditional Shariat law.³³It adopts a gender-neutral approach, allowing both men and women equal rights in adopting and being adopted. The Bill also codifies maintenance obligations, extending them to both spouses and dependent children, thereby providing a framework for financial protection and welfare.

By doing away with religiously-based distinctions in civil matters, the Uttarakhand UCC Bill attempts to fulfill the constitutional promise of equality before the law and non-discrimination. However, it does so while carving out exceptions for tribal groups, thereby respecting India's commitment to cultural pluralism. This balanced approach suggests that uniformity in civil law need not come at the cost of obliterating cultural diversity.

Critics, however, have argued that the Bill was passed without adequate engagement with minority religious groups, especially Muslims and Christians, and that its provisions may be perceived as imposing majoritarian values under the garb of legal uniformity.³⁴ Supporters counter that the Bill is a necessary corrective to deeply entrenched gender and social injustices perpetuated under the guise of religious autonomy.

Regardless of the polarized views, the Uttarakhand UCC Bill provides a concrete legislative model for uniform civil laws in India. It raises important questions about the nature of secularism, the limits of religious freedom, and the constitutional imperative of reform. Its success or failure in implementation will likely influence whether other states—and eventually the Union—choose to adopt similar frameworks.

V. Comparative analysis with existing personal laws

The Uttarakhand UCC Bill, 2024, attempts to harmonize personal laws that have traditionally been governed by religion-specific customs and statutes. In doing so, it challenges the long-standing system of legal pluralism in India. This section provides a comparative analysis of key areas regulated under the Bill—namely marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, and live-in relationships—vis-à-vis the major personal laws currently applicable in India.

Marriage Laws under existing personal law frameworks differ significantly across religious lines. For instance, the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, mandates monogamy, consent, and specific ceremonial formalities.³⁵In contrast, Muslim law permits polygamy for men and does not require registration of marriage, although consent is mandatory.³⁶ Christian marriages are governed by the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872, which requires a church ceremony and registration, while Parsi marriages are governed by the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.³⁷ The Uttarakhand UCC Bill introduces a uniform standard: all marriages must be monogamous, consent-based, and registered, irrespective of the religious identity of the parties.³⁸

In divorce law, religious diversity has produced stark inconsistencies. Hindu law allows for divorce by mutual consent and on specific fault-based grounds under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.³⁹ Muslim law traditionally permits unilateral divorce by the husband (talaq), with limited rights for women to initiate divorce under khula or through the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939.⁴⁰ Christian law under the Divorce Act, 1869, has undergone amendments to allow broader grounds for divorce, but it still retains procedural complexities.⁴¹The UCC Bill levels the field by offering common grounds for divorce to all citizens, abolishing unilateral and extra-judicial divorce practices such as triple talaq.⁴²

Inheritance and succession laws are among the most unequal and gender-biased across Indian personal law systems. Under the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, sons have traditionally been favored in property division through the concept of coparcenary.⁴³ Muslim law allocates shares based on complex Quranic provisions, which often result in reduced inheritance for female heirs.⁴⁴Christians and Parsis have their own codified laws, but even those reflect patriarchal structures.⁴⁵ The Uttarakhand UCC Bill abolishes these disparities by granting sons and daughters equal rights in inheritance, regardless of religion or marital status.⁴⁶

Adoption presents a unique challenge because it is not uniformly permitted across religious communities. Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs can adopt under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which recognizes full adoptive rights.⁴⁷ However, Islamic personal law does not recognize adoption in the legal sense; instead, guardianship (kafala) is permitted, which does not create inheritance rights.⁴⁸ The UCC Bill introduces a uniform, gender-neutral adoption law applicable to all citizens, thereby extending adoptive rights to Muslims, Christians, and others who previously lacked statutory access to adoption.⁴⁹

The legal status of live-in relationships remains nebulous under most personal laws, which do not explicitly recognize such arrangements. The Supreme Court has provided limited protection to couples in live-in relationships, especially in cases concerning domestic violence and maintenance, but legislative clarity has been lacking.⁵⁰The Uttarakhand UCC Bill fills this gap by requiring registration of live-in relationships and extending legal protections, including rights to maintenance and legitimacy of children born from such unions.⁵¹ This approach recognizes contemporary social realities while safeguarding the rights of individuals involved.

By consolidating disparate personal laws into a single legal framework, the Uttarakhand UCC Bill seeks to eliminate the systemic inequalities and gender biases perpetuated by religious doctrines. It promotes substantive equality and strengthens secularism by detaching civil rights from religious identity. Yet, its implications for deeply entrenched cultural practices raise critical questions about how legal reform should proceed in a pluralistic democracy.

VI. Implications for nationwide implementation

The passage of the Uttarakhand UCC Bill, 2024, opens up an important avenue for assessing how a Uniform Civil Code might be practically implemented throughout India. While the Bill demonstrates that state-level legislation on uniform civil law is constitutionally permissible under the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule,⁵² national-level implementation remains fraught with legal, political, and cultural challenges. This section explores the key implications, obstacles, and strategies for potential nationwide adoption of the UCC.

A. Legal and Constitutional Dimensions

The foremost challenge in implementing a national UCC is reconciling it with the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of religion and the right to manage religious affairs.⁵³Critics argue that any attempt to impose uniform civil laws could amount to an infringement on these rights, especially where personal laws are seen as integral to religious practice. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that the right to religious freedom does not extend to secular activities, including marriage, inheritance, and succession, which are open to regulation by the state.⁵⁴

In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, the Court underscored that secularism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and that the state is empowered to regulate religious practices that contradict public order, morality, or health.⁵⁵ Moreover, Entry 5 of the Concurrent List empowers both Parliament and state legislatures to make laws relating to marriage and divorce, infants and minors, adoption, and succession.⁵⁶ The Uttarakhand Bill, therefore, sets a valid constitutional precedent for similar legislation by other states or at the central level.

Nevertheless, the lack of a clear judicial consensus on whether personal laws are subject to fundamental rights remains a grey area. In Narasu Appa Mali, the Bombay High Court held that personal laws are not "laws" within the meaning of Article 13 and hence cannot be challenged for violating fundamental rights.⁵⁷ This ruling has not been directly overruled by the Supreme Court, although later decisions have implicitly eroded its authority.⁵⁸ A future constitutional challenge to a nationwide UCC is likely to force the judiciary to reconsider this doctrinal ambiguity.

B. Political and Socio-Cultural Resistance

The political sensitivity surrounding the UCC stems largely from concerns among minority communities, particularly Muslims, that the UCC might erode their religious identity.⁵⁹ Historical episodes, such as the backlash to the Shah Bano ruling and the subsequent enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, demonstrate how legal reforms can trigger political mobilization along religious lines.⁶⁰

Religious minorities have traditionally viewed personal laws as an extension of their cultural autonomy, and any attempt to reform them—especially by a majoritarian government—raises fears of assimilation and marginalization.⁶¹ Additionally, intra-community variations, such as between Shia and Sunni Muslims or between different Christian denominations, further complicate efforts to draft a uniform civil code that is perceived as fair and inclusive.

C. Gradual and Consultative Implementation

Given these complexities, a phased and consultative approach is imperative for nationwide implementation of a UCC. First, more states could follow Uttarakhand’s model by enacting their own UCCs, thereby generating momentum for reform while accounting for regional and cultural variations.⁶² Second, the Law Commission of India should initiate wide-ranging consultations with stakeholders across all communities to draft a model UCC that balances uniformity with cultural sensitivity.

Furthermore, instead of abolishing personal laws entirely, the state could codify and reform them to align with constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.⁶³ Codification would bring transparency and allow judicial scrutiny, while reforming discriminatory practices incrementally rather than through an abrupt overhaul. This approach has already been adopted for Hindu personal law through the Hindu Code Bills of the 1950s.

Public legal education and awareness campaigns are also essential to counter misinformation and build support for reform. Without broad-based public consensus, any legislative attempt to implement a UCC may risk alienating significant sections of society and defeating the purpose of fostering unity and equality.

VII. Recommendations and conclusion

The enactment of the Uttarakhand UCC Bill, 2024, marks a historic legislative effort to unify civil laws across religious communities while maintaining constitutional fidelity to equality and secularism. However, the path toward a national Uniform Civil Code remains both legally viable and socially sensitive. Given the magnitude of its implications on religious and cultural practices, any move toward nationwide implementation must be guided by deliberation, inclusivity, and phased adaptation. This final section outlines key recommendations for a constitutionally compliant and socially acceptable implementation of a UCC across India.

A. Recommendations for National Implementation

1. Codification and Reform of Existing Personal Laws: Before introducing a national UCC, a pragmatic step would be the codification and modernization of existing personal laws, particularly those that are uncodified or insufficiently reformed, such as Muslim and tribal laws.⁶⁴ This would allow for judicial scrutiny and pave the way for harmonization without direct abolition.

2. State-Level Pilots as Precedents: More states should be encouraged to enact their own UCCs based on regional consultations. Like Uttarakhand, these states can create context-sensitive laws while adhering to the constitutional mandate under Article 44.⁶⁵ Such decentralized experimentation will help evolve a consensus model that can later be adopted nationally.

3. Constitution of an Expert Drafting Committee: A diverse national commission comprising jurists, sociologists, religious scholars, and women's rights activists should be constituted to draft a model UCC. This committee should focus on ensuring that the code upholds gender justice, equality before law, and respect for pluralism.⁶⁶

4. Protection for Cultural and Tribal Autonomy: A national UCC should include constitutional safeguards for Scheduled Tribes under Article 371, as recognized in the Uttarakhand model.⁶⁷ Additionally, room should be provided for cultural exceptions that do not violate basic human rights norms, thereby preserving India’s multicultural fabric.

5. Extensive Public Consultations: A series of structured consultations should be conducted at both state and national levels to gather feedback from affected communities. This participatory approach will lend democratic legitimacy to the UCC and dispel concerns of coercive uniformity.⁶⁸

6. Legal Literacy and Education: Legal awareness campaigns must be launched to educate the public about the objectives, benefits, and scope of the UCC. Transparent dissemination of accurate information will counter disinformation and foster informed public debate.

7. Gradual and Voluntary Adoption Mechanism: Initially, the UCC can be introduced as an optional framework that citizens may choose to opt into. Over time, as public confidence and familiarity grow, the code can be incrementally extended through legislative processes.⁶⁹

B. Conclusion

The Uniform Civil Code was envisaged by the framers of the Constitution as a vehicle to promote national integration, gender justice, and equality before the law. Yet, its implementation has remained elusive due to the intricacies of India's religious, cultural, and political pluralism. The passage of the Uttarakhand UCC Bill provides a working blueprint that balances uniformity with constitutional safeguards and cultural autonomy.

This research has demonstrated that while there are formidable obstacles—ranging from judicial ambiguities to minority apprehensions—there is also substantial constitutional space and social momentum for reform. The gradual, consultative, and rights-based implementation of a UCC can transform India’s personal law regime into one that truly upholds the secular and egalitarian ideals of the Constitution.

Thus, the journey toward a national Uniform Civil Code must not be one of imposition but of democratic engagement, guided by constitutional values and informed public discourse. The Uttarakhand experiment offers a critical opportunity to reimagine civil law in a way that respects both individual rights and collective identities.

*****

Footnotes

1. Author is an LL.M. Student at Gujarat National Law University Silvassa Campus, India.

2. INDIA CONST. art. 44. ↩

3. See Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code Bill, 2024, available at https://uklegislativeassembly.gov.in/ (last visited May 16, 2025). ↩

4. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3 S.C.C. 635 (India); John Vallamattom v. Union of India, (2003) 6 S.C.C. 611 (India). ↩

5. Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VII, 548–570 (Nov. 23, 1948) (statements by Mohamed Ismail, Naziruddin Ahmad, and Mahboob Ali Baig). ↩

6. INDIA CONST. art. 44; see also M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1030 (8th ed. 2018). ↩

7. Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VII, 548–570 (Nov. 23, 1948). ↩

8. Id. at 549 (statement of Mohamed Ismail). ↩

9. Id. at 551 (statement of Naziruddin Ahmad). ↩

10. Id. at 552 (statement of Mahboob Ali Baig). ↩

11. Id. at 560–565 (statement of K.M. Munshi). ↩

12. Id. ↩

13. Id. at 570 (statement of B.R. Ambedkar). ↩

14. Id. ↩

15. Id. ↩

16. State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali, A.I.R. 1952 Bom. 84 (India). ↩

17. Id. at 91–92 ↩

18. Id. at 88. ↩

19. Id. at 93. ↩

20. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 945 (India). ↩

21. Id. at 950. ↩

22. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3 S.C.C. 635 (India). ↩

23. Id. at 651 ↩

24. John Vallamattom v. Union of India, (2003) 6 S.C.C. 611 (India). ↩

25. Id. at 618. ↩

26. The Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand Bill, 2024, Bill No. 01 of 2024, Legislative Assembly of Uttarakhand. ↩

27. Id. “Uttarakhand Becomes First State to Pass UCC Bill,” The Hindu (Feb. 7, 2024), https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/uttarakhand-ucc. ↩

28. INDIA CONST. art. 371 ↩

29. Uttarakhand UCC Bill, § 5. ↩

30. Id. § 7 ↩

31. Id. §§ 10–15. ↩

32. Id. §§ 20–22 ↩

33. Id. § 18. ↩

34. “Uttarakhand UCC Bill Draws Mixed Reactions,” Indian Express (Feb. 9, 2024), https://indianexpress.com/article/uttarakhand-ucc-reactions. ↩

35. Hindu Marriage Act, No. 25 of 1955, §§ 5–7, INDIA CODE (1955). ↩

36. Tahir Mahmood, Personal Laws in Crisis 23–27 (1986). ↩

37. Indian Christian Marriage Act, No. 15 of 1872, §§ 10–17; Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, No. 3 of 1936. ↩

38. The Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand Bill, 2024, §§ 5–7. ↩

39. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, §§ 13, 13B. ↩

40. Shamim Ara v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 3551 (India). ↩

41. Divorce Act, No. 4 of 1869, as amended by Act No. 51 of 2001. ↩

42. Uttarakhand UCC Bill, §§ 10–15. ↩

43. Hindu Succession Act, No. 30 of 1956, § 6, INDIA CODE (1956). ↩

44. MULLA, PRINCIPLES OF MAHOMMEDAN LAW 280–303 (22d ed. 2020). ↩

45. Indian Succession Act, No. 39 of 1925, §§ 31–56. ↩

46. Uttarakhand UCC Bill, § 16. ↩

47. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, No. 78 of 1956. ↩

48. See Tahir Mahmood, Muslim Law Reform in India (1972). ↩

49. Uttarakhand UCC Bill, § 18. ↩

50. D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 S.C.C. 469 (India). ↩

51. Uttarakhand UCC Bill, §§ 20–22 ↩

52. INDIA CONST. Schedule VII, List III, Entry 5 ↩

53. INDIA CONST. arts. 25, 26. ↩

54. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 282 (India). ↩

55. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 S.C.C. 1 (India). ↩

56. INDIA CONST. Schedule VII, List III, Entry 5. ↩

57. State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali, A.I.R. 1952 Bom. 84 (India). ↩

58. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2018) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India); Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 S.C.C. 39 (India). ↩

59. Tahir Mahmood, Personal Laws in Crisis 92 (1986). ↩

60. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 945 (India); Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, No. 25 of 1986. ↩

61. Flavia Agnes, Law and Gender Inequality: The Politics of Women’s Rights in India 81 (1999). ↩

62. “After Uttarakhand, Gujarat Mulls UCC Bill,” The Hindu (Mar. 1, 2024), https://www.thehindu.com/news/national. ↩

63. Law Commission of India, Consultation Paper on Reform of Family Law (2018). ↩

64. Law Commission of India, Consultation Paper on Reform of Family Law (2018). ↩

65. INDIA CONST. art. 44; The Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand Bill, 2024. ↩

66. “Constitution of Drafting Committee for UCC Urged,” Bar & Bench (Mar. 2024), https://www.barandbench.com/news. ↩

67. INDIA CONST. art. 371; Uttarakhand UCC Bill, § 2. ↩

68. Law Commission of India, Consultation Paper on Reform of Family Law, supra note 1. ↩

69. Flavia Agnes, Law and Gender Inequality: The Politics of Women’s Rights in India 145 (1999). ↩