UCC Is Long Due; Can't Be Made Voluntary: Allahabad HC Calls Upon Central Govt To Implement The Mandate Of Article 44
🔷 1. What is Article 44?
Article 44 of the Indian Constitution falls under the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) in Part IV and states:
“The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India.”
While DPSPs are non-justiciable (not enforceable by any court), they are fundamental in the governance of the country and are meant to guide the formulation of laws and policies.
A Uniform Civil Code refers to a common set of personal laws applicable to all citizens, irrespective of religion, tribe, caste, or gender. It deals with laws related to marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, and maintenance.
🔷 2. Observation of the Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court, while hearing a case related to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, made the observation:
"The UCC is long due and cannot be made voluntary. The framers of the Constitution had expressed hope that the State would bring a uniform civil code, and yet, more than seven decades later, it has not been implemented."
Key Takeaways:
The Court urged the Central Government to take decisive steps toward implementing UCC.
It rejected the argument that UCC could be left to individual choice or made voluntary.
The Court emphasized that Article 44 is a constitutional mandate, not a mere option.
🔷 3. Relevant Case Laws
✅ Shah Bano Case (1985) – Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum
Citation: AIR 1985 SC 945
A landmark judgment where the Supreme Court upheld the right of a Muslim woman to claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
The Court observed that:
“A common civil code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to laws which have conflicting ideologies.”
The Court also strongly recommended the implementation of UCC under Article 44.
✅ Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995)
Citation: AIR 1995 SC 1531
Concerned a Hindu man who converted to Islam to marry again without divorcing his first wife.
The Supreme Court held this to be an abuse of personal laws.
The Court remarked:
“Article 44 is based on the concept that there is no necessary connection between religion and personal law in a civilized society.”
It also called the non-implementation of UCC a cause of great concern.
✅ John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003)
Citation: (2003) 6 SCC 611
Concerned a Christian priest challenging Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, which restricted property donation.
The Court struck it down as discriminatory, and again highlighted the need for UCC.
Stated that:
“It is a matter of regret that Article 44 has remained a dead letter.”
✅ Danial Latifi v. Union of India (2001)
Citation: (2001) 7 SCC 740
Reaffirmed the Shah Bano principle, stating that a Muslim woman is entitled to reasonable and fair provision during and even after the iddat period.
The Court indirectly bolstered the argument for uniform rights and protections, irrespective of personal law.
🔷 4. Why Did the High Court Make This Observation?
The Allahabad High Court was likely responding to repeated legal disputes emerging from the diverse personal laws governing different religious communities, leading to:
Legal uncertainty
Gender injustice
Violation of the right to equality under Article 14
The Court’s tone suggests a shift from judicial recommendation to judicial insistence. It reflects the judiciary’s increasing impatience with legislative inaction.
🔷 5. Is UCC Against Religious Freedom (Article 25)?
A frequent counter-argument is that UCC violates Article 25, which guarantees freedom of religion.
However, the Supreme Court has clarified in multiple judgments (like Sarla Mudgal) that:
Personal laws are not an essential part of religion and can be reformed in the interest of public order, morality, and equality.
Thus, UCC is not unconstitutional per se; it must be crafted carefully, respecting diversity but ensuring uniformity in civil rights.
🔷 6. Present Status and Way Forward
Despite being a directive principle, the implementation of UCC has remained politically sensitive. However:
Several Law Commission reports have endorsed a gradual, consultative approach.
Goa is often cited as a successful model, where a common civil code exists.
The Allahabad HC’s observation could pressure the legislature to initiate discussions or propose a draft.
🔷 Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court’s remark — that UCC is long due and cannot be made voluntary — is a powerful judicial reminder to the Central Government about its constitutional responsibility under Article 44. Drawing strength from decades of Supreme Court judgments, the Court signals that piecemeal reforms are insufficient, and the time for a structured, inclusive, and uniform civil framework has come.
RELATED Blog
0 comments