Striking a Balance: The dilemma of a Uniform Civil Code in India’s pulralistic society


By Dr M A Mufazzal

Within the territorial confines of India, a nation known for its intricate interplay of composite fabric and profound social heterogeneity, a socio-cultural milieu of remarkable complexity takes shape. This milieu is characterized by the harmonious coexistence of diverse elements, embodying the cherished principle of “Unity in diversity.” Emboldened by this undeniable reality, India consistently receives acclaim as a commendable exemplar of a pluralistic society, one that takes great pride in fostering its distinct attribute of unity through the very mechanism of plurality. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that amidst the inherent existence of multiplicity, India is inevitably entwined with the imperative of legal pluralism—an inherent phenomenon that naturally emerges as an indispensable requirement within Indian society.

The concept of composite fabric encompasses the intricate interplay of various cultural, linguistic, religious, and regional elements that collectively shape the rich tapestry of Indian society. It highlights the profound social heterogeneity present within the nation, where a plethora of diverse identities, beliefs, practices, and perspectives coexist. This dynamic amalgamation of differences engenders a vibrant and multifarious social fabric, which forms the cornerstone of India’s identity as a diverse nation.
India’s success as a pluralistic society lies in its ability to sustain and nurture this unity amidst its inherent diversity. By embracing legal pluralism, India acknowledges the coexistence of multiple legal systems and recognizes the need to accommodate diverse legal practices, customs, and traditions that arise from its heterogeneous social fabric.

Legal pluralism refers to the coexistence of multiple legal frameworks within a society, where both formal legal systems, such as statutory law, and informal legal systems, such as customary law, hold significance. In the Indian context, legal pluralism manifests in the recognition of diverse personal laws based on religion, as well as the existence of customary laws governing various communities and regions. This legal pluralism is an intrinsic feature of Indian society, which recognizes the importance of preserving and respecting the distinct identities and practices of its diverse population.

Within the realm of contemporary legal discourse, a careful examination of the perspectives put forth by legal theorists reveals the inherent illusory nature of the concept of legal centralism, while the veracity of legal pluralism triumphs. This paradigm shift in legal understanding can be attributed to the British approach of adopting a policy characterized by “minimal state” intervention and “political neutrality” with regard to religious and customary matters concerning their subjects.

To elucidate the genesis of state recognition of legal pluralism in India, one must delve into the regulatory measures introduced by Warren Hastings in 1772. This particular regulation holds profound historical significance as it explicitly stipulates the adherence to Islamic law prescribed by the Koran in legal proceedings concerning Muslims, particularly in matters pertaining to marriage, caste, and other religious practices and institutions. In contrast, matters concerning Hindus (referred to as Gentoos at the time) were to be governed by the Shaster, an ancient Hindu legal text.

Warren Hastings’ regulation represents a pivotal moment in the recognition and accommodation of legal pluralism within the Indian legal framework. By acknowledging and affirming the coexistence of distinct legal systems for different religious communities, the British administration acknowledged the necessity of accommodating religious and customary laws in order to ensure justice and fairness within the diverse Indian society.

This historical development can be seen as a response to the complex socio-religious fabric of India, where diverse communities with varying religious and customary practices coexisted. The British policy of political neutrality and minimal state intervention allowed for the preservation and application of religious and customary laws, recognizing their importance to the respective communities’ identity and social order.

The recognition of legal pluralism in India’s colonial legal framework laid the foundation for its continued presence in the post-independence era. The Indian legal system, shaped by a rich tapestry of diverse legal traditions, acknowledges the coexistence of various legal systems, including state laws, personal laws based on religious texts and customs, and customary laws practiced by indigenous communities.

Thus, the pivotal Warren Hastings regulation of 1772 serves as an essential milestone, marking the official recognition of legal pluralism in India. It underscores the departure from an ideal of legal centralism and sets a precedent for the coexistence and application of multiple legal frameworks, predicated upon religious doctrines and customs, as an integral aspect of the Indian legal landscape.

Fortunately, the esteemed members of the Constituent Assembly of India recognized the imperative for India, as a composite whole, to reconcile its rich heritage of plurality with the new socio-legal realities it faced. They understood that legal pluralism was an inevitable reality that India would have to embrace. Despite the heated arguments and debates that ensued, the proceedings of the Assembly went to great lengths to protect the rights of minority communities. The justification behind this protection was rooted in the understanding that an individual citizen, in addition to their allegiance to the state, also held a profound duty towards their faith and traditions. It was recognized that a person must honor their obligations to their God and conscience, and if these obligations clashed with their duty to the state, they were entitled, ultimately, to act in accordance with their own judgment of what is right.
Disregarding religious and cultural distinctions in the name of “national unity” would be akin to an antithetical parallelism. The progress and achievements of any nation are directly proportional to the contributions of individual members from different communities. These individual members cannot move forward unless they are afforded an equal opportunity to adhere to their own ideals and beliefs. Therefore, alongside civil and criminal laws, the constitution safeguards the existence of personal laws governed by traditional and religious principles.
However, following intense debates, the Constituent Assembly eventually reached a compromise by incorporating Article 44 into the Indian Constitution. This article, which falls under the category of non-justiciable Directive Principles of State Policy, envisions a Uniform Civil Code as a future aspiration.

Nevertheless, this article is in significant discord with the pluralistic essence of India and conflicts with certain fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution, thus becoming a bone of contention.

The inclusion of Article 44 as a non-justiciable directive principle reflects the cautious approach taken by the Constituent Assembly, as it acknowledged the sensitivities and complexities associated with unifying personal laws across diverse religious and cultural communities. It left the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code to future deliberations, recognizing that any attempt to impose such a code would require a comprehensive understanding of India’s pluralistic ethos and the careful negotiation of competing interests and rights.

The contentious nature of Article 44 arises from the inherent tension between the aspiration for a uniform civil code and the preservation of religious and cultural diversity. Critics argue that a uniform civil code may undermine the distinct identity and practices of minority communities, infringing upon their rights to maintain their unique customs and traditions. On the other hand, proponents advocate for the establishment of a uniform civil code to promote gender equality, secularism, and a sense of national unity.

In aggregate, the members of the Constituent Assembly recognized the need for India to embrace its pluralistic heritage and navigate the complexities of legal pluralism. While safeguarding the rights of minority communities and their personal laws, the Assembly inserted Article 44 into the Indian Constitution as a non-justiciable directive principle, envisioning a future Uniform Civil Code. However, the inclusion of this article became a subject of controversy, given its misalignment with the pluralistic fabric of India and its potential conflicts with certain fundamental rights. The debates surrounding Article 44 reflect the ongoing struggle to strike a balance between promoting uniformity and respecting diversity within the Indian legal framework.

The minority community expressed strong resentment towards the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) on the grounds that it would essentially impose a “majority code” on the diverse and composite whole of India. These voices of discontent were not limited to the minority community alone, as even members of the majority Hindu community opposed the idea of a uniform civil code. Prominent figures such as Guru Golwalker of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) voiced their concerns, viewing the Indian Constitution as a patchwork of foreign constitutions that disregarded the unique experiences of India.

The controversy surrounding the issue of “triple talaq” is essentially a matter to be addressed within the framework of personal law. Reforms in the realm of personal law must align with the interpretations of Quranic verses and the principles of Sharia law, taking into account the specific circumstances and receptiveness of the respective religious communities towards such reforms. The existence of different schools of Sharia law stems from diverse human interpretations of Quranic injunctions, and therefore, there is room for changes and new interpretations in response to evolving circumstances. However, the manner in which the issue of “triple talaq” has been highlighted and sensationalized raises skepticism and raises deeper questions.

The concerns surrounding the issues like “triple talaq” extend beyond the immediate issue itself. The focus on this particular aspect of personal law and the amplification of its controversies divert attention from the broader and more nuanced discussions that need to take place. By fixating on such matters critical aspects like gender equality, women’s rights, and social reforms within religious communities risk being overlooked. Skepticism arises as to whether the genuine concerns and interests of individuals within the minority community are being addressed or if the issue is being exploited to serve other political or ideological agendas.

In order to foster meaningful dialogue and address the complexities of personal laws, it is essential to approach these discussions with an understanding of the diverse interpretations and practices within different religious communities. Reforms should be pursued within a framework that respects religious beliefs, traditions, and the autonomy of religious communities, while also ensuring that fundamental rights and principles of justice are upheld.

In conclusion, the notion of imposing a uniform civil code at the expense of personal laws raises concerns regarding the preservation of religious and cultural diversity within the nation. It is imperative to grant minorities the freedom to adhere to their respective faiths and traditions without compromising the principle of equal citizenship. The cultural fabric of a country or state plays a pivotal role in fostering a harmonious coexistence of religious and cultural practices among both majority and minority groups, and India is no exception to this phenomenon. Suppressing and restricting the religious and cultural rights of minorities would pose a significant threat to the overall cultural well-being of a nation.

Beyond personal laws, the Indian Constitution incorporates various provisions that ensure special safeguards for marginalized communities such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and smaller minorities like Anglo-Indians. These provisions encompass special representation in Parliament, state legislatures, village Panchayats, municipalities, and cooperative societies. Moreover, the Indian Constitution recognizes and protects social and legal pluralism, emphasizing the unity and integrity of the nation in its Preamble, while endorsing and guaranteeing the principle of pluralism.

By upholding the principles of legal pluralism and accommodating the diverse religious and cultural backgrounds of its citizens, India embraces a path that fosters inclusivity, social harmony, and cultural richness. It recognizes that the strength and progress of a nation lie in the equitable coexistence and mutual respect among its various communities. It is through the preservation and safeguarding of the religious-cultural rights of minorities, alongside the provisions for social and legal pluralism, that India upholds the ideals of unity, integrity, and pluralism enshrined in its Constitution. By striking a delicate balance between uniformity and diversity, India can aspire to cultivate a vibrant and inclusive society that cherishes the richness of its pluralistic heritage.


  1. Gobbledygook from a lowlife who wants to have his cake and eat it too.
    Fortunately, sufficient number of Muslim women have received a liberal education in India since Hastings’ “earthshaking” 1772 rule – especially since August 15, 1947 – that hopefully they will prevail in claiming their rights and responsibilities in social, civil, legal, economical, and political spheres.
    Malala ought to come to India to campaign for UCC.

  2. Muslim Fault. To spread Ganga Jamuni Tahjeeb among Hindus and Muslims, Muslims should have asked Hindus to do ‘Halala’ for their women folks. Next door Gupta Jee or Sharma Jee would have loved to do it. No Hindu would then ask Muslims to move to Pakistan. Just a thought for Muslims to consider.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here