The Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Act,2024- First of its Kind, a Jurisprudence for Other States

Aditi Goyal, Students, DMLU

Abstract

Uttarakhand passing the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Act in 2024 feels like a real turning point for India’s legal and political landscape. For years, Article 44 of the Constitution just sat there—everyone talked about it, but nobody actually put it into practice. It was always seen as something only the central government could handle. But now, Uttarakhand’s move shows that big changes in personal law don’t have to start from Delhi. States can lead the way too. This paper takes a hard look at Uttarakhand’s UCC, treating it almost like a constitutional experiment. Does it actually push us closer to gender justice and equality? Or does it just flatten out differences, ignoring personal liberty, religious freedom, and the country’s diverse traditions? First, there’s the mess of different personal laws. They’re full of contradictions—especially when it comes to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and polygamy. These old laws haven’t been kind to women. The paper digs into important Supreme Court cases like Shayara Bano v. Union of India and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to see if the new Act really delivers on equality under Article 14. At the same time, it checks whether the UCC clashes with people’s rights to privacy (Article 21) and religious freedom (Article 25). Some parts of the law are especially hotly debated—like banning polygamy, making inheritance rights equal, and requiring live-in couples to register. The paper tests these against the proportionality principle from the Modern Dental College case. But the Act leaves out some big issues. It doesn’t touch adoption, guardianship, maintenance, or LGBTQ+ rights. That raises a serious question: Is this really about making the law uniform for everyone, or is it just a patchwork fix? There’s also the matter of tribal communities. They’re excluded from the law, and there’s no clear plan for when—or if—that might change. Plus, the Act doesn’t really look at how Goa’s civil code or international models work, which feels like a missed opportunity. In the end, this paper doesn’t treat Uttarakhand’s UCC as the perfect blueprint for the rest of India. It’s more of a test run—a way to see how equality, federalism, and personal freedoms can work together, or rub up against each other. Whether it succeeds depends on how the courts handle it, whether lawmakers are willing to refine it, and if it can bring real reform without trampling on India’s pluralism

Introduction

For decades, Article 44 of the constitution remained a directive without action, cited in courtrooms and Law Commission reports, but never turned into reality. In 2024, Uttarakhand broke that impasse. By enacting its own Uniform Civil Code, the state did more than codify family law — it redefined India’s federal balance, showing that a state, not the Union, could take the first step in a reform long framed as national. The state stepped into a domain long framed as a national responsibility. This also shows how the state has rebalanced the federal architecture by creating a personal law reform traditionally seen as a central duty that can emerge from state innovation. The enactment of the UCC has been under controversy since its inception due to diversity and different beliefs among people from various cultures. To date, we do not have a UCC for the nation to help bring uniformity and equality among all people of people.  This shift raises a deeper question: does Uttarakhand’s experiment advance constitutional equality, or does it risk uniformity at the cost of personal freedom? Does the Uttarakhand experiment act as a jurisprudential shift in India's federal landscape? 

Purpose and Need for UCC

 During the drafting of the Indian Constitution, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar strongly emphasized the need for a uniform civil code for the country. But this argument was highly criticized by minorities as they thought their culture and traditions would erode due to this. As a result, UCC was kept in DPSPs, which are not enforceable but are obligations of the state to act for the welfare of its citizens. Each law treats its followers differently, which causes confusion and injustice to citizens. The need for a common civil law has always arisen from the need of contradictions from different personal laws.  For instance, in Muslim law, men could unilaterally divorce women, called triple talaq, which was declared unconstitutional in the case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017). These laws leave women at a disadvantage in custody battles, divorce settlements, etc. Also, under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, a Muslim woman has to prove particular grounds to obtain a divorce. These practices reflect the inhumanity suffered by Muslim women, which can be addressed through the enactment of a common legislation. Not just Muslim women, even the Hindu women have gotten their coparcenary rights only after the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act.

Uttrakhands UCC comes as a reformist approach as an attempt to ensure justice and equality for all genders, where every person gets the right of inheritance, abortion, a ban on polygamy, etc.

UCC in Practice: Uttarakhand’s Experiment

Uttarakhand becomes the first Indian state to enact UCC, making it an example for other states and an experiment before the parliament implements it. Uttarakhand’s UCC formulation started when a five-member committee was formed under Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai (former Supreme Court judge) in 2022 to look into the state's personal laws and formulate a law to ensure fairness among all citizens. In 2024, after 2 years of deliberation, Uttarakhand came up with its first-of-its-kind UCC bill, which was passed by the state assembly and made enforceable in 2025.

The legislation must be seen as a constitutional experiment rather than just a statutory reform. The state has ensured this by enacting laws like a ban on polygamy, which will strengthen women’s marital status, especially for Muslim women, advancing the substantive equality under Article 14. But this articles demands not only equality but non-arbitrariness, reasonable classification and substantive equality as well. Here imposing ban on polygamy is seen as a substantive equality which has to be tested on the grounds whether it is constitutionally valid or does it differently impact the diverse communities.  But the real question lies in its accordance with Article 25, which protects the religious freedom of individuals. Here, the state's obligation to ensure equality contradicts with individual claim and their right to practice any religion. This thus requires greater review to accommodate its suitability and necessity to achieve the desired goal.

Equal inheritance rights will give daughters and wives equal claims over property, strengthening gender justice. However, the author's concern lies in whether the provision of UCC overrides the equal inheritance rules of Mitakshara or coparcenary. Registration of live-in relationships is helpful for unmarried couples, but it is a very controversial topic in India, as there are high chances of violating the right to privacy under Article 21, as stated in the K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India,2017 case.  This also raises some serious questions under the tree part proportionality test laid down in Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh. Here, the state has to prove the suitability, legitimate aim, and least intrusive method to enact a law. Whether legalizing live-in relationships caters to this test or not is a question to be judicially interpreted.

This law also does not fully capture the essence of a comprehensive UCC for personal laws, as it lacks key provisions such as adoption and guardianship, succession and inheritance, and maintenance, which are crucial for eradicating ambiguities in personal laws. Right now, the states' UCC gives only partial uniformity to its citizens. This selective rollout can be seen as a political concession as much as a legal design. Through this, they can review it as a pragmatic federal experiment and a tactical strategy, while offering attractive measures for a large community, neglecting to provoke sustainable community resistance.

The Debate Around Uttarakhand’s UCC

The main controversies of these laws are on the gap in the formulation of the UCC. The 21^st Law Commission, led by Justice Balbir Singh Chauhan in 2018, stated that UCC is neither necessary nor desirable at this time, and amending certain laws will ensure the inculcation of the core objective of UCC. But the parliament pushed for UCC by enacting acts like the Hindu Code Bills of 1950, which gave greater rights to women in marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. The Special Marriage Act 1954 allowed people of different religions to get married legally. All this shows that the implementation of UCC is not a sudden idea; attempts have been made to ensure its usage, but the central tension in implementing this lies in the promise of equality versus the threat to pluralism.

Proponents of the act will argue that states' interest in securing gender justice and preventing exploitation justifies the law. Whereas the Critics argue that the Act's scope is limited by omitting adoption, LGBTQ+ rights. This law, to remain sustainable and beneficial, must expand its scope to encompass all areas, ensuring inclusivity for all. Opponents will stress the autonomy and religious freedom received through the act.

 In India, Goa is the only state that practices on the lines of UCC, but this model does not show any comparative analysis with Goa’s or international civil codes, which allow limited community-specific customs to maximize their potential. Also in Goa, the uniform law works in line with certain community-specific customs; it has not created complete homogenization regarding practices. People are skeptical of their fundamental rights as the UCC does not provide a balance with Article 44 and Article 21, and Article 25; these Articles need to be examined by a proportionality test to lay out the least intrusive means for restricting fundamental rights and to strike a balance between both rights. This law also created an exemption for the Tribal people without specifying a proper time period; removal of this indefinite exemption or adding a sunset clause is needed at the hour to show this in line with tribal needs as well.

One of the main concerns regarding such a law is its implementation, acceptance by its people, and the court’s functioning according to this law. All these challenges make this law difficult to implement in the state, but it does not mean that the entire law is worthless.

Conclusion and Road Ahead

The state has set a precedent, but to evolve beyond mere symbolism, the state law needs to overcome its challenges to practically benefit from the laws. If Uttarakhand succeeds, it will be because it balanced equality with constitutional care — not because it imposed uniformity by fiat. Uttarakhand’s UCC should not be viewed as a prototype for immediate national replication but as a constitutional laboratory—a space to test how equality, privacy, and religious freedom can be balanced within a diverse society. Its selective scope shows both political caution and constitutional experimentation. In a federal nation as diverse as uniformity, must evolve through constitutional care, not central compulsion.

References

1. The Constitution of India, art. 44.

2. Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.

3. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

4. TrModern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353.

5. Law Commission of India, “Consultation Paper on Reform of Family Law” (August 2018).

The information contained in this blog is for general information purposes only. We endeavour to keep all the information up to date and try our level best to avoid any misinformation or any kind of objectionable content. If you found any misinformation or objectionable contents in this website please report us at editors.jilw@gmail.com