Why should a Uniform Civil Code be implemented in the spirit of the Indian Constitution?

*Paromita Das
The debate over a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has resurfaced in India’s popular discourse. The UCC simply refers to a common law that governs all civil relations, such as marriage, divorce, succession, and so on.

Various religious laws currently govern people of various religious denominations. For example, a Hindu marriage will be governed by the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, whereas Muslims will be governed by their own religious laws.

Despite the fact that politicians and legal luminaries have expressed their views on the measure’s ‘constitutionality,’ the terms of the Constitution do not leave any room for a debatable legal grey area. Article 44 of the Constitution states unequivocally that enacting a UCC is one of the goals of the state of India. If a policy goal, such as the UCC, is mentioned in the Constitution, it is nearly impossible to argue that its implementation will be unconstitutional. Thus, the debate is technical and is framed by an old legal battle between Fundamental Rights (FRs) and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) (DPSPs).

It is important to understand the technicalities of this debate before attempting to deal with its terms. The FRs are mentioned in Part III of the Constitution, and the DPSPs are mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution. In the scheme of our Constitution, FRs have been made enforceable, and one can approach the high courts and the Supreme Court if any of their FRs are violated. The DPSPs, on the other hand, are not enforceable by any court and instead serve as directives to the government of the day to frame laws accordingly. In the current debate, it is argued that enacting a UCC, while fulfilling a DPSP, violates Article 25, which guarantees freedom to practice, profess, and propagate one’s religion.

The flaw in the preceding argument is obvious. The question of pitting FRs against DPSPs is incorrect in and of itself, and it will be argued that the UCC will be constitutional even if it is not mentioned as a DPSP. As a result, the entire debate over FRs vs. DPSPs is completely unnecessary.