Assam just became a part of a rather rare club. On 27th of May, 2026, The Assam Legislative Assembly adopted the Uniform Civil Code Bill, making Assam the first state in the North East and the third state in the country to adopt such a legislation. Apart from Uttarakhand and Gujarat, Assam has now become one of the few states that has acted upon Uniform Civil Code.
What is Uniform Civil Code (UCC)? Where does the concept of UCC emanate from? These are common questions that have garnered renewed interest. Before addressing the discourse around UCC, it would be trite to get an overview of how our forefathers drafted the Constitution of India. At the outset, the relevant parts to understand the debate around UCC are primarily, Part III and Part IV of the Constitution. Part III of the Constitution enumerate the Fundamental Rights. Whereas, Part IV contains the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). On the surface, it is simple to understand the distinction between both these parts. In the ever-green words of Granville Austin, Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles Act as the “conscience of our Constitution”. In the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati (1973), the Apex Court had also remarked, that Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles aim at the same goal of bringing about a social revolution and establishment of a welfare state and they can be interpreted and applied together. They are supplementary and complimentary to each other. It can well be said that directive principles prescribed the goal to be attained and the Fundamental Rights lay down the means by which that goal is to be achieved.
Part III of the Constitution is ordinarily the most essential for the common man to know. Perhaps, it needs no further divulgence, as it is one of the most commonly spoken about topics. What makes them inalienable, is the fact that these are justiciable rights. Therefore, the Fundamental Rights which are guaranteed to Indian citizens, can be enforced through the Court of Law and any law in its derogation becomes inherently void.
However, very interestingly, our forefathers who drafted the Constitution drew a distinction. Our Constitution was never supposed to be static. In a very simple sense, the aspirations of Bharat, which perhaps could not have been made enforceable at its nascent stage, was included in Part IV of the Constitution. DPSPs enumerate the vital goals the State must consider when making laws and policies. Distinctively from Fundamental Rights, these were non-justiciable rights. In simple terms, you cannot sue the government in court for not implementing them. However, they captured the aspirational side of the Constitution.
Once the Distinction of DPSP and Fundamental Rights is clear, one can dive a little deeper into what actually were these aspirational values enumerated by our forefathers. Article 44 of the Constitution of India has always aspired that a Uniform Civil Code must be adopted. The Constitutional text unequivocally clarifies, that the State shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India. In simple terms, it envisions a single, secular set of law applicable to all citizens in personal matters such as marriage, divorce, custody, inheritance and so on. The goal is simple – reduce personal laws and push for a unified and codified law on personal matters. In the case of Sarla Mudgal (1995), even the Apex Court had sought for a fresh look at Article 44 of the Constitution. The Government was asked to file an affidavit on record, indicating the steps taken and efforts made towards securing a Uniform Civil Code. Along similar lines, in the case of John Vallamatton (2003), a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had, on record, expressed regret for non-enactment of Uniform Civil Code, while observing that Article 44 is based on the premise that there is no necessary connection between religion and personal law in a civilized society.
Two common questions plague the discourse around Uniform Civil Code. Firstly, if at all the Constitutional text unequivocally aspires for there to be a Uniform Civil Code, why is it always met with resistance? Secondly, and on the flip side, if at all the Constitutional text unequivocally aspires for there to be a Uniform Civil Code, why have only a handful of States endeavored to implement it? The adoption of Uniform Civil by the Government of Assam could be used as an example to reflect this conundrum.
In my simple understanding, the conundrum exists owing to the fact that Indian Citizens have been assured with a strong sense of Religious Autonomy. Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which, in distinction to Article 44, is a justiciable Fundamental Right, ensuring that all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. This protection is in direct cohorts with Uniform Civil Code, which threatens curbing religious autonomy to assure uniformity. More importantly, amidst polarizing times, it has become tough to ensure unbiased and absolute secularism.
Opponents consistently argue, UCC has been used as a tool of imposition, rather than uniformity. For Example, AIMIM chief, Asaduddin Owaisi was quick to allege that the State Government of Assam was guilty of imposing Hindu marriage customs on Muslims, through its UCC norms. His qualm was owing to the fact that the UCC norms in Assam exclude the Tribal Population from the garb of UCC, but does not extend the same benefit to Muslims. Owaisi further exclaimed, “In Hinduism, there is a list of prohibited relationships with whom you cannot marry. But among Muslims, marriages take place with… Who are you to stop us? Why are you enforcing that religious law on us?”
On the other hand, the Chief Minister of Assam was quick to defend the legislation and pointed out that it was a vital step for gender justice, equal property rights, and modern legal reform. He argued that the concept of a Uniform Civil Code was not a new idea introduced by the BJP, but one that had historically found support within the Congress as well. He said the demand for a UCC dates back to 1925 and was also reflected in the recommendations of the Nehru Committee in 1937. Furthermore, the Assam Supremo reminded the opponents of UCC Bill, that “the Constitution itself envisioned that when the time becomes appropriate, a Uniform Civil Code should be implemented.”
Walking the thin line between religious autonomy and absolute secular uniformity was never supposed to be easy. Perhaps, our much wiser forefathers, therefore, deemed it fit to make the goal of Uniform Civil Code aspirational, instead of implementing it right away. The only relevant question, thus, in my mind, are we still ready for a secular and unified law?
(The Author is a practicing Advocate at the Gauhati High Court, Assam)
