Uniform Civil Code: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:53, 19 October 2024

Latest revision as of 06:25, 30 July 2025

(33 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)

Line 7:

{{Family law|all}}

The '''Uniform Civil Code''' is a proposal in India to formulate and implement [[personal law]]s of citizens which apply onequally to all citizens equally, regardless of their religion. Currently, personal laws of variousminority religious communities are governed by their religious scriptures.<ref name="HTMAR21"/> [[Personal law]]slaws cover marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and [[alimony|maintenance]]. While articles 25-28 of the [[Constitution of India|Indian Constitution]] guarantee [[Freedom of religion in India|religious freedom]] to Indian citizens and allow religious groups to maintain their own affairs, article 44 expects the Indian state to apply [[Directive Principles|directive principles]] and common law foruniformly to all Indian citizens whilewhen formulating national policies.<ref name="Blueprint for scholarly discourse">{{Cite book|author1=Shimon Shetreet|author2=Hiram E. Chodosh|title=Uniform Civil Code for India: Proposed Blueprint for Scholarly Discourse|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=y-pIDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT4|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-807712-1|date=December 2014|access-date=2020-08-22}}</ref><ref>{{CitePage webneeded|titledate=ArticleJuly 44 in the Constitution of India 1949|url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1406604/ |website=Indian Kanoon |access-date=2020-08-222025}}</ref>

Personal laws were first framed during the [[British Raj]], mainly for Hindu and Muslim citizenssubjects. The British feared opposition from community leaders and refrained from further interfering within this [[Separate spheres|domestic sphere]].{{Citation needed|date=July 2025}} The Indian state of [[Goa]] was separated from [[British Raj|British India]] during the colonial rule in the erstwhile [[Portuguese Goa and Damaon|Portuguese Goa and Daman]], retained a common family law known as the [[Goa civil code]] and thus was the only state in India with a uniform civil code prior to 2024. Following India's independence, [[Hindu code bills]] were introduced which largely codified and reformed personal laws in various sects among [[Indian religions]] like [[Buddhism|Buddhists]], [[Hindus]], [[Jains]] and [[Sikhs]] but they exempted [[Christians]], [[Jews]], [[Muslims]] and [[Parsis]].<ref name="Rina Wiiliams">{{Cite book|author=Rina Verma Williams|title=Postcolonial Politics and Personal Laws|pages=18, 28, 106, 107, 119|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|isbn=0-19-568014-6|date=2006}}</ref><ref name="The Wire UCC gender justice">{{cite news |last1=Dasgupta |first1=Sravasti |title=BJP Equates UCC With Gender Justice. But Can It End Discrimination In-Built in Personal Laws? |url=https://thewire.in/women/bjp-ucc-with-gender-justice-discrimination-personal-laws |access-date=6 July 2023 |work=[[The Wire (India)|The Wire]] |date=6 July 2023 |___location=New Delhi |language=en}}</ref>

UCC emerged as a crucial topic of interest in Indian politics following the [[Shah Bano case]] in 1985. The debate arose on the question of making certain laws applicable to all citizens without abridging the fundamental right to practice religious functions. The debate then focused on the [[Muslim Personalpersonal Lawlaw]], which is partially based on [[shariaSharia|Sharia law]], permitting [[Divorce in Islam|unilateral divorce]], [[polygamy]] and putting Indiait among the countries that [[Muslim personal law in India|legally enforceapplying shariathe laws]]Sharia inspite of not being a [[Islamic state|Islamic countrylaw]]. A UCC bill was proposed twice, in November 2019 and March 2020 but was withdrawn both the times without introduction in the parliament. The bill is reported to be under discussion between the [[BJP]] and the [[Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh]] (RSS).<ref name="Ramchandran"/> Many opposition parties and BJP's allies from the [[National Democratic Alliance]] (NDA) have opposed the Uniform Civil Code, especially from [[Northeast India]], claiming that it will go against the "idea of India" and will end special privileges of tribal communities after renewed calls by Prime Minister [[Narendra Modi]] in June 2023 about implementing a UCC.<ref name="scroll.in NDA partners oppose UCC">{{cite news |last1=Dasgupta |first1=Sravasti |title=NDA Partners from Northeast Oppose BJP's Push for Uniform Civil Code |url=https://thewire.in/politics/nda-partners-in-northeast-oppose-bjps-push-for-uniform-civil-code |access-date=6 July 2023 |work=[[The Wire (India)|The Wire]] |date=3 July 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Staff |first1=The Wire |title=In Poll Bound Madhya Pradesh, PM Modi Rakes up Triple Talaq, UCC and 'Appeasement' |url=https://thewire.in/politics/in-poll-bound-madhya-pradesh-pm-modi-rakes-up-triple-talaq-ucc-and-appeasement |access-date=16 July 2023 |work=[[The Wire (India)|The Wire]] |date=27 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230715222251/https://thewire.in/politics/in-poll-bound-madhya-pradesh-pm-modi-rakes-up-triple-talaq-ucc-and-appeasement |archive-date=15 July 2023 |___location=New Delhi |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Staff |first1=The Wire |title=In Poll Bound Madhya Pradesh, PM Modi Rakes up Triple Talaq, UCC and 'Appeasement' |url=https://thewire.in/politics/in-poll-bound-madhya-pradesh-pm-modi-rakes-up-triple-talaq-ucc-and-appeasement |access-date=16 July 2023 |work=[[The Wire (India)|The Wire]] |date=27 June 2023}}</ref>

== History ==

=== British India (1858–1947) ===

{{See also|Hindu personal law|Muslim personal law|Christian personal law}}

The Lex Loci Report of October 1840 emphasised the importance and necessity of uniformity in [[codification (law)|codification]] of Indian law, relating to crimes, evidences and contract but it recommended that [[personal law]]s of Hindus and Muslims should be kept outside such codification.<ref name="Banerjee1984">{{cite book|author=Banerjee|first=Anil Chandra|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7MXExXXb9usC&pg=PA134|title=English Law in India|publisher=Abhinav Publications|year=1984|isbn=978-81-7017-183-6|page=134|access-date=26 September 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170217053133/https://books.google.com/books?id=7MXExXXb9usC&pg=PA134|archive-date=17 February 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> According to their understanding of religious divisions in India, the British separated this sphere which would be governed by religious scriptures and customs of the various communities (Hindus, Muslims, Christians and later [[Parsi]]s).{{sfn|Sarkar|Sarkar|2008|p=2–3}} These laws were applied by the local courts or [[panchayat]]s when dealing with regular cases involving civil disputes between people of the same religion; the State would only intervene in exceptional cases. Thus, the British let the Indian public have the benefit of self-government in their own domestic matters with the Queen Victoria's 1859 Proclamation at the [[Delhi Durbar]] promising absolute non-interference in religious matters.{{sfn|Chavan|Kidwai|2006|p=66–67}}{{sfn|Sarkar|Sarkar|2008|p=263}} namelyThe personal laws involvinginvolved inheritance, succession, marriage and religious ceremonies. The public sphere was governed by the British and Anglo-Indian law in terms of crime, land relations, laws of contract and evidence—all this applied equally to every citizen irrespective of religion.{{sfn|Sarkar|Sarkar|2008|p=263}}

Throughout the country, there was a variation in preference for scriptural or customary laws because in many Hindu and Muslim communities, these were sometimes at conflict;{{sfn|Sarkar|Sarkar|2008|p=2–3}} such instances were present in communities like the [[Jat people|Jats]] and the [[Dravidian people|Dravidians]]. The [[Shudras]], for instance, allowed widow remarriage—completely contrary to the scriptural [[Hindu law]].{{sfn|Sarkar|Sarkar|2008|p=93}} The Hindu laws got preference because of their relative ease in implementation, preference for such a [[Brahmin]]ical system by both British and Indian judges and their fear of opposition from the high caste Hindus.{{sfn|Sarkar|Sarkar|2008|p=93}} The difficulty in investigating each specific practice of any community, case-by-case, made customary laws harder to implement. Towards the end of the nineteenth century, favouring local opinion, the recognition of individual customs and traditions increased.{{sfn|Sarkar|Sarkar|2008|p=263}}

The Muslim Personal law (based on [[Sharia law]]), was not strictly enforced as compared to the Hindu law. It had no uniformity in its application at lower courts and was severely restricted because of bureaucratic procedures. This led to the precedence of [[customary law]], which was often more discriminatory against women, to be applied over it. Women, mainly in northern and western India, often were restrained from property inheritance and [[dowry]] settlements, both of which the Sharia provides.{{sfn|Lawrence|Karim|2007|p=262–264}} Due to pressure from the Muslim elite, the Shariat law of 1937 was passed which stipulated that all Indian Muslims would be governed by Islamic laws on marriage, divorce, maintenance, adoption, succession and inheritance.{{sfn|Lawrence|Karim|2007|p=262–264}}

==== Legislative reforms ====

Certain Hindu customs prevalent at the time discriminated against women by depriving them of inheritance, remarriage and divorce. Their condition, especially that of [[Widow remarriage|Hindu widows]] and daughters, was poor due to this and other prevalent customs.{{sfn|Chavan|Kidwai|2006|p=87–88}}{{sfn|Chavan|Kidwai|2006|p=94–100}} The British and social reformers like [[Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar]] were instrumental in outlawing such customs by getting reforms passed through [[legislature|legislative processes]].{{sfn|Chavan|Kidwai|2006|p=83–86}} Since the British feared opposition from orthodox community leaders, only the Indian Succession Act 1865, which was also one of the first laws to ensure women's economic security, attempted to shift the personal laws to the realm of [[Civil law (common law)|civil]]. The Indian Marriage Act 1864 had procedures and reforms solely for Christian marriages.{{sfn|Samaddar|2005|p=50–51}}

Under the [[Company rule in India|rule]] of the [[East India Company]], [[Hindu law]] was gradually codified & reforms in it (like the [[Bengal Sati Regulation, 1829|abolition]] of [[Sati (practice)|sati]]) were implemented in consultation with orthodox Hindu [[brahmin]] [[Pandit|pandits]] well versed in ''[[Dharmaśāstra|dharmasastra]]''. However, after the imposition of [[British Raj|direct rule of the British crown over India]], following the [[Indian Rebellion of 1857]], personal laws of Hindus began to be unilaterally amended by legislative bodies, without taking into consideration opinions of the religious scholars.

There were law reforms passed which were beneficial to women like the [[Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856|Hindu Widow Remarriage Act of 1856]], Married Women's Property Act of 1923 and the [[The Hindu Inheritance (Removal of Disabilities) Act, 1928|Hindu Inheritance (Removal of Disabilities) Act, 1928]], which in a significant move, permitted a Hindu woman's right to property.{{sfn|Chavan|Kidwai|2006|p=87–88}}

Line 39 ⟶ 37:

{{further|Hindu code bills}}

[[File:Jawaharlal Nehru, circa 1925.jpg|thumb|upright=0.9|[[Jawaharlal Nehru]] supported a uniform civil code but he had to face opposition from other leaders]]

The Indian Parliament discussed the report of the Hindu law committee during the 1948–1951 and 1951–1954 sessions. The first Prime Minister of the [[Indian republic]], [[Jawaharlal Nehru]], his supporters and women members wanted a uniform civil code to be implemented.{{sfn|Chavan|Kidwai|2006|p=90, 94–100}} As [[Law minister of India|Law Minister]], [[B. R. Ambedkar]] was in charge of presenting the details of this bill. It was found that the orthodox Hindu laws were pertaining only to a specific school and tradition because monogamy, divorce and the widow's right to inherit property weren'twere present in the ''[[Shashtra]]s''.{{sfn|Chavan|Kidwai|2006|p=90, 94–100}} A civilCivil codeCode based onof western European modelsinspiration was recommended by Ambedkar.<ref>{{cite web|last=Jaffrelot|first=Christophe|author-link=Christophe Jaffrelot|date=14 August 2003|title=Ambedkar And The Uniform Civil Code|url=http://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/ambedkar-and-the-uniform-civil-code/221068|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160414123716/http://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/ambedkar-and-the-uniform-civil-code/221068|archive-date=14 April 2016|access-date=29 March 2016|website=Outlook India}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Pathak|first=Vikas|date=1 December 2015|title=Ambedkar favoured common civil code|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ambedkar-favoured-common-civil-code/article7934565.ece|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161128184514/http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ambedkar-favoured-common-civil-code/article7934565.ece|archive-date=28 November 2016|access-date=29 March 2016|website=The Hindu}}</ref> Ambedkar's anti-Hindufrequent sentimentsattack (seeon [[Twenty-twothe vowsHindu of Ambedkar|22 vows of Ambedkar]]) arising out of his fight against [[untouchability]]laws and extreme disdaindislike for Brahminicalthe cultureupper castes made him unpopular in the parliament woth other Hindu MPs. He had done research on the religious texts and considered the Hindu society structure flawed. According to him, only law reforms could save it and the Code bill was this opportunity.{{sfn|Sarkar|Sarkar|2008|p=480–491}} He thus faced severe criticism from the opposition. Nehru later supported Ambedkar's reforms but did not share his negative viewsview on Hindu society.{{sfn|Sarkar|Sarkar|2008|p=480–491}}

The Hindu bill itself received much criticism and the main provisions opposed were those concerning monogamy, divorce, abolition of [[coparcenary|coparcenaries]] (women inheriting a shared title) and inheritance to daughters. The first President of the country, [[Rajendra Prasad]], opposed these reforms; others included the [[Indian National Congress|Congress party]] president [[Vallabhbhai Patel]], a few senior members and the Hindu fundamentalists within Indian National Congress.{{sfn|Chavan|Kidwai|2006|p=83–86}}<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Som|first1=Reba|date=1994-02-01|title=Jawaharlal Nehru and the Hindu Code: A Victory of Symbol over Substance?|journal=Modern Asian Studies|volume=28|issue=1|pages=165–194 |publisher=Cambridge University Press|doi=10.1017/S0026749X00011732|jstor=312925|issn=0026-749X}}</ref> The women members of the parliament, who previously supported this, in a significant political move reversed their position and backed the Hindu law reform; they feared allying with the fundamentalists would cause a further setback to their rights.{{sfn|Chavan|Kidwai|2006|p=87–88}}

Thus, a lesser version of this bill was passed by the parliament in 1956, in the form of four separate acts, the [[Hindu Marriage Act]], [[Hindu Succession Act, 1956|Succession Act]], [[Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act|Minority and Guardianship Act]] and [[Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (1956)|Adoptions and Maintenance Act]]. It was decided to add the implementation of a uniform civil code in Article 44 of the [[Directive Principles in India|Directive principles of the Constitution]] specifying, "The State shall endeavour to secure for citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India."<ref>{{cite web|last=Purandare|first=Vaibhav|date=8 September 2017|title=How Muslim fears were allayed, and the UCC became a directive principle|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/how-muslim-fears-were-allayed-and-the-ucc-became-a-directive-principle/articleshow/60417611.cms|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170911014209/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/how-muslim-fears-were-allayed-and-the-ucc-became-a-directive-principle/articleshow/60417611.cms|archive-date=11 September 2017|access-date=13 September 2017|website=The Times of India}}</ref> This was opposed by women members like [[Rajkumari Amrit Kaur]] and [[Hansa Mehta]]. According to academic Paula Banerjee, this move was to make sure it would never be addressed.{{sfn|Samaddar|2005|p=56–59}} Aparna Mahanta writes, "failure of the Indian state to provide a uniform civil code, consistent with its democratic secular and socialist declarations, further illustrates the modern state's accommodation of the traditional interests of a patriarchal society".{{sfn|Samaddar|2005|p=56–59}} The opposition parties like the [[Hindu Mahasabha]] & other Hindu right wing groups like the [[Akhil Bharatiya Ram Rajya Parishad|Ram Rajya Parishad]] described the imposition of a largely secularised personal law derived from Western European models on Hindus while maintaining a separate body of [[sharia]]-based personal laws for Muslims by retaining the ''Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act'' of 1937 went against Article 44 of the Constitution & was tantamount to [[Pseudo-secularism|Muslim appeasement]].

=== Later years and Special Marriage Act ===

The Hindu code bill failed to control the prevalent gender discrimination. The law on divorce were framed giving both partners equal voice but majority of its implementation involved those initiated by men. Since the Act applied only to Hindus, women from the other communities remained subordinated. For instance, [[Women in Islam|Muslim women]], under the Muslim Personal Law, could not inherit agricultural land.{{sfn|Samaddar|2005|p=56–59}} Nehru accepted that the bill was not complete and perfect, but was cautious about implementing drastic changes which could stir up specific communities. He agreed that it lacked any substantial reforms but felt it was an "outstanding achievement" of his time.{{sfn|Sarkar|Sarkar|2008|p=480–491}} He had a significant role in getting the Hindu Code bill passed and laid down women-equality as an ideal to be pursued in Indian politics, which was eventually accepted by the previous critics of the bill.{{sfn|Sarkar|Sarkar|2008|p=480–491}} Uniform civil code, for him, was a necessity for the whole country but he did not want it to forced upon any community, especially if they were not ready for such a reform. According to him, such a lack of uniformity was preferable since it would be ineffective if implemented. Thus, his vision of family law uniformity was not applied and was added to the Directive principles of the [[Constitution of India|Constitution]].{{sfn|Sarkar|Sarkar|2008|p=480–491}}

The [[Special Marriage Act, 1954]], provides a form of civil marriage to any citizen irrespective of religion, thus permitting any Indian to have their marriage outside the realm of any specific religious personal law.<ref name="Singh1993"/> The law applied to all of India, except [[Jammu and Kashmir (state)|Jammu and Kashmir]]. In many respects, the act was almost identical to the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, which gives some idea as to how secularised the law regarding Hindus had become. The Special Marriage Act allowed Muslims to marry under it and thereby retain the protections, generally beneficial to Muslim women, that could not be found in the personal law. Under this act polygamy was illegal, and inheritance and succession would be governed by the ''Indian Succession Act'' of 1925, rather than the respective Muslim Personal Law. Divorce also would be governed by the secular law, and maintenance of a divorced wife would be along the lines set down in the civil law.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/4234/ |title=The Special Marriage Act, 1954 |website=indiakanoon.org |language=en |access-date=2020-09-16 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200721081233/https://indiankanoon.org/doc/4234/ |archive-date=2020-07-21 }}</ref>

== Significance of Shah Bano case ==

Line 66 ⟶ 64:

== Current status and opinions ==

=== Definition of the proposal ===

UCC is meant to replace various laws currently applicable to different communities which are inconsistent with each other. Some prominentThese laws that would be abolished on pro.ulgation of UCC include the [[Hindu Marriage Act]], [[Hindu Succession Act]], [[The Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872|Indian Christian MarriageMarriages Act]] (applicable for [[Christianity in India|Christians]]) [[Anand Karaj]] Act (applicable for [[Sikhs]]), Indian Divorce Act &, Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act. (applicableMeanwhile, certain codes forlike [[ParsisSharia]]). Meanwhile, (Islamic laws) are not codified and solely based upon their religious compilations, largely the [[Fatawa 'Alamgiri|''Fatawa-i-Alamgiri'']]scriptures.<ref name="HTMAR21">{{Cite news|last=Anand|first=Utkarsh|date=2021-03-15|title=Has the Supreme Court set the ball rolling for a Uniform Civil Code?|newspaper=Hindustan Times|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/has-the-supreme-court-set-the-ball-rolling-for-a-uniform-civil-code-101615802810671.html|access-date=2021-04-21}}</ref>

The proposals in UCC include [[monogamy]], equal rights for son and daughter over inheritance of paternal property, and gender and religion neutral laws with regards to will, charity, divinity, guardianship and sharing of custody. These proposals may not result in much difference to the status of Hindu society, as they have already been applicable on Hindus through [[Hindu code bills|the Hindu Code Bills]] for decades,.<ref name="LiveLawAPR21"/> but will greatly impact the Muslims. Another big proposal is to make Muslims follow the same personal laws as [[Kafir|non-Muslims]], which has been the main bone of contention among the Mulsim community.

=== Points of view ===

Line 96 ⟶ 94:

== Legal status and prospects ==

UCC had been included in BJP's manifesto for the [[1998 Indian general election|1998]] and [[2019 Indian general elections|2019 elections]], and was even proposed for introduction in the Parliament for the first time in November 2019 by [[Narayan Lal Panchariya]]. Amid protests by other MPs, the bill was soon withdrawn for making certain amendments.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Chari|first=Seshadri|title=Modi govt has been working for a Uniform Civil Code and we didn't even notice. Until now|url=https://theprint.in/opinion/modi-govt-has-been-working-for-a-uniform-civil-code-and-we-didnt-even-notice-until-now/278053/|publisher=The Print|date=2019-08-16|access-date=2020-08-22}}</ref><ref name="AM Jigeesh">{{Cite news|author=Jigeesh|first=AM|date=2019-12-06|title=After objections, BJP member withdraws Bill for UCC|publisher=The Hindu Business Line|url=https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/after-objections-bjp-member-withdraws-bill-for-ucc/article30217193.ece|access-date=2020-08-22}}</ref> The bill was brought for a second time by [[Kirodi Lal Meena]] in March 2020, but was not introduced again.<ref>{{Cite news|author=Joy|first=Shemin|date=2020-03-13|title=BJP MP once again does not introduce Uniform Civil Code Bill|publisher=Deccan Herald|___location=New Delhi|url=https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/bjp-mp-once-again-does-not-introduce-uniform-civil-code-bill-813445.html|access-date=2020-09-14}}</ref> As per reports which emerged in 2020, the bill's specifics are being contemplated by the BJP due to its topical differences with the RSS.<ref name="Ramchandran">{{Cite news|author=Ramchandran|first=Smriti Kak|date=2020-08-06|title=BJP, RSS hope for consensus on Uniform Civil Code|newspaper=The Hindu|url=https://m.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bjp-rss-hope-for-consensus-on-ucc/story-ASFagZCCQPEIfQT59HMgkK.html|access-date=2020-08-22}}{{Dead link|date=July 2025 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Sharma|first=Vibha|title=UCC next on Modi govt agenda?|url=https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/ucc-next-on-modi-govt-agenda-123130|newspaper=The Tribune|date=2020-08-06|access-date=2020-08-22|archive-date=1 July 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230701075743/https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/ucc-next-on-modi-govt-agenda-123130|url-status=dead}}</ref>

A plea was filed in the [[Delhi High Court]] which sought establishment of a judicial commission or a high level expert committee to direct the central government to prepare a draft of UCC in three months. In April 2021, a request was filed to transfer the plea to the Supreme Court so that filing of more such pleas throughout various high courts doesn't bring inconsistency throughout India. The draft would further be published on the website for 60 days to facilitate extensive public debate and feedback.<ref name="LiveLawAPR21">{{Cite news|last=Ojha|first=Drishti|date=2021-04-11|title=Plea In Supreme Court Seeks Transfer Of Plea For Uniform Civil Code From Delhi High Court To SC|url=https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-uniform-civil-code-delhi-high-court-transfer-of-case-ucc-172432|newspaper=LiveLaw|access-date=2021-04-21}}</ref>

Line 131 ⟶ 129:

== External links ==

*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3530608.stm "Muslim women fight instant divorce"] from [[BBC]]

*[http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?227793 "So Do We Want A UCC?"] article by [[Dilip D'Souza]] from [[Outlook (Indian magazine)|''Outlook'']]

*

*"[https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/law-commission-s-report-on-uniform-civil-code-not-before-2018/story-hizRvHNIJtvLTCUdyuHgZL.html Law Commission's report on uniform civil code not before 2018"] article by [https://www.hindustantimes.com/author/jatin-gandhi-101608310569764 Jatin Gandhi] from [[Hindustan Times]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Uniform civil code}}

[[Category:Civil codes]]

[[Category:Women's rights in India]]

[[Category:Indian family law]]

[[Category:Identity politics in India]]

[[Category:Law by issue]]

[[Category:Law by issue and country]]

[[Category:Legal systems]]

[[Category:Women's rights in India]]

[[Category:Women's rights in religious movements]]

[[Category:Religious controversies in India]]

[[Category:Political controversies in India]]

[[Category:Controversies in India]]