Uniform Civil Code & Doctrine of Repugnancy: When Central & State Laws Collide

Summary: The article examines the Uniform Civil Code debate through the interconnected questions of gender justice, constitutional rights and the allocation of legislative power between Parliament and State legislatures. Beginning with women’s equality and international human-rights instruments, it considers Article 44’s directive to secure a common civil code and discusses Goa’s civil-law framework, Uttarakhand’s legislation and the wider movement towards State-level enactments. Its central concern is the potential conflict between State civil codes and a subsequent Parliamentary law covering the same subject. The discussion addresses the Concurrent List, the doctrine of repugnancy under Article 254, the protection available to certain State laws receiving Presidential assent and Parliament’s continuing power to override that protection through subsequent legislation. It refers to Supreme Court authorities on repugnancy and personal-law reform, while also considering the constitutional balance between enforceable fundamental rights and Directive Principles. The article contrasts the case for a national code with the 21st Law Commission’s 2018 preference for removing discrimination through reforms within personal laws. It further identifies cultural diversity, tribal customs, religious freedom and transitional questions affecting pending proceedings as important implementation concerns. Ultimately, the author favours a centrally enacted Uniform Civil Code developed after considering the country’s traditions, customs and social circumstances, while recognising that its design remains a contested policy question.

Uniform Civil Code, Gender Equality and Article 44

On 18th July 1927, Dr.Ambedkar addressed a meeting of about three thousand women of the Depressed Classes, where he said, “I measure the progress of community, by the degree of progress which women had achieved.” In the past, there existed many distinctive differences between Men and Women, their roles in society and their modes of behaviour. Though considerable changes have been made, women continue to fight for their rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, enshrines “the equal rights of men and women” and addressed both the equality and equity issues. In 1979, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). In our written Holy document i.e., Constitution of India Article 44 states that “The state shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India” which will fall within the ambit of Directive Principles of State Policy (D.P.S.P.). UCC is an alternative rule book to replace all the personal laws with a common set of rules to every citizen in India which has direct connection with legal, social, cultural and political affiliations. The debate for a uniform civil code, with its diverse implications and concerning secularism in the country, is one of the most controversial issues in twenty-first century Indian politics. (Chavan, Nandini; Kidwai, QutubJehan (2006). Personal Law Reforms and Gender Empowerment: A Debate on Uniform Civil Code. Hope India Publications. ISBN 978-81-7871-079-2). So, if the UCC has been on the agenda for decades, to some because it is written in our constitution, the question that arises is why the issue has become contentious now. According to the government the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is the need of the hour and in the national interest.

State-Level Uniform Civil Codes and the National Legislative Agenda

In the State of Goa, the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867 is enforced and the State of Uttarakhand is also implementing Uniform Civil Code Act(Act No. 3 of 2024)in which total 392 Sections divided into four parts and seven chapters. In that First Part deals with Marriage and Divorce, second part deals with Succession, third part is about Live-In Relationship which at present trending among youngsters, final part is about Repeal. The State-wise UCC status Uttarakhand (in force since January 2025), Gujarat (passed March 2026) and Assam (passed May 2026) have all enacted UCC legislation, and Madhya Pradesh tabled its bill in July 2026. The other states like Maharashtra, West-Bengal and Rajasthan have constituted committees to draft Uniform Civil Code and initiated the process. Maharashtra’s panel is, notably, also headed by Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, who also chaired the Uttarakhand and Gujarat drafting committees. Recently, the Home Minister of Union of India asserted that NDA-Led State governments will legislate Uniform Civil Code before 2029 General elections, the said statement again raise the debate on Uniform Civil Code. The prime motto of Union of India is “One Nation, One Law”. Under Uniform Civil Code they intend to legislate one Law pertaining to Marriage Laws, Succession Laws, Divorce Laws, Adoption Laws, etc, if the State government intended to add apart from the above, irrespective of religion.

Concurrent Legislative Powers and the Doctrine of Repugnancy

The Laws that are aimed to codified into one comes under Concurrent List which is enumerated in Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India in which both the Union and State Governments have power to legislate the laws subject to that if there is repugnancy arises Union Law will always prevail over State Law unless otherwise. If the states in India legislating the Uniform Civil Code according to their state traditions, customs or it can be unified, what if the Union of India legislate Uniform Civil Code with the same context by then according Doctrine of Repugnancy comes into play then the Union Law will prevail over State Law as per Article 254 of the Constitution of India. The said Doctrine of Repugnancy has two sides of coin, one side will make state law as void and another side of the coin states if and only if the state law direct or inconsistency with the Union law has to prove to make the said Law to be void as also stated by the Apex Court of India in State of Kerala vs Mar Appraem Kuri Co.Ltd, 2012 (7) SCC 106. It is also apt to comprehend the verdicts of the Highest Court of India to know how about the Doctrine of Repugnancy M.Karunanidhi vs Union of India, (1979) 3 SCC 431 and Forum for People’s Collective Efforts vs State of West Bengal, (2021) 8 SCC 599. Further Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India states that state can make a law even if union enacted but it has to take assent from the President of India, to this clause also exception is that though the state took the assent from the President of India, there is no bar to the Parliament to add or amend or repeal the law as made by the state. It means that Union of India has granted legal power to enact.

Meaning of “State”, Judicial Observations and Fundamental Rights

The Connotation of “State” has explicited under Article 12 of the mother text of India i.e., Constitution of India states that State includes Union of India, State Governments and also entails all local or other authorities within the territory of India and under the control of Government of India but the word “State” under Article 44 of the Constitution of India has not been outlined anywhere in the text. As by the verbatim of Article 44 we can apprehend that the word “State” means the Union of India. On the same pretext, if Union of India bring Uniform Civil Code after all States in India commenced the implementation of the same that lead to malady in India pertaining jurisdictional issue, disposed and pending cases, compensation or imposed punishments, to evade the same optimal proposition is Union of India is competent enough to enact the Uniform Civil Code that’s because ultimately the supremacy of Parliament prevails over the State legislations. Time and again the Apex Court of India through its verdicts namely Mohd.Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum 1985(2)SCC 556, Sarla Mudgal vs Union of India 1995 (3) SCC 635, John Vellamattom vs Union of India 2003 SCC Online SC 716,Shayara Bano vs Union of India 2017(9) SCC 1, Jose Paulo Coutinho vs Maria Luiza Valentia Pere 2019 SCC Online SC 1196 manifested dismay about Uniform Civil Code and implored to Union of India to take necessary step to enact Uniform Civil Code. While Article 44 places the Uniform Civil Code within the Directive Principles of State Policy, it does not stand alone in the constitutional scheme. Part III of the Constitution guarantees the right to equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), life and personal liberty (Article 21), and freedom of religion (Articles 25 and 26), all of which are justifiable rights enforceable before courts, unlike the non-justifiable directives of Part IV. The Supreme Court in Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) held that a harmonious balance between Part III and Part IV forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and it is precisely this balance that any UCC legislation must reconcile.

Law Commission’s Approach to Personal-Law Reform

The Law Commission of India has, in more than one occasion, examined this very question. In its Consultation Paper on Reform of Family Law released in 2018, the 21st Law Commission took the view that a Uniform Civil Code was neither necessary nor desirable at that stage, and recommended instead that the discriminatory practices within each personal law be identified and remedied through incremental, codified reform, so that gender justice could be achieved without eroding the diversity of personal laws. This position was not binding on the Union, being in the nature of a recommendation rather than law, but it remains an influential and frequently cited policy assessment of the subject. The debate has, however, continued to evolve, with subsequent Law Commissions inviting fresh public consultation on the desirability and contours of a Uniform Civil Code, reflecting the fact that this remains very much a live and unsettled question of policy rather than one on which a constitutional consensus has been reached.

Cultural Diversity, Tribal Customs and Implementation Challenges

The Uniform Civil Code can be devised after flaunting a route to legal, social, cultural affiliations because many people of India were worrisome about it. The implementation of Uniform Civil Code in the states and tribal areas big hurdle per se because tribal areas they will have their own traditions and one of the aspect is that they will not even allow any single person outside their community to their premises as such parts of North Eastern States were tribal people are in large in number opposing the same. The Union of India is contemplated as Father of all the States in India and so it is apposite that Union of India by taking into account every aspect and every corner of this Country’s traditions, customs, and norms enact a new Uniform Civil Code Act or Uniform Civil Code which is Need of the Hour.

Cases Discussed

• Forum for People’s Collective Efforts vs State of West Bengal, (2021) 8 SCC 599 (Supreme Court of India) — Cited in the discussion of repugnancy between Parliamentary and State legislation.
• Jose Paulo Coutinho vs Maria Luiza Valentia Pere, 2019 SCC Online SC 1196 (Supreme Court of India) — Cited in connection with judicial observations concerning a Uniform Civil Code.
• Shayara Bano vs Union of India, 2017(9) SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India) — Discussed in the article’s treatment of personal-law reform and the Uniform Civil Code debate.
• State of Kerala vs Mar Appraem Kuri Co.Ltd, 2012 (7) SCC 106 (Supreme Court of India) — Cited concerning inconsistency between Central and State enactments.
• John Vellamattom vs Union of India, 2003 SCC Online SC 716 (Supreme Court of India) — Cited in connection with judicial observations on implementing a Uniform Civil Code.
• Sarla Mudgal vs Union of India, 1995 (3) SCC 635 (Supreme Court of India) — Referred to in the discussion of Supreme Court observations favouring civil-law reform.
• Mohd.Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum, 1985(2)SCC 556 (Supreme Court of India) — Cited as part of the judicial background to the Uniform Civil Code debate.
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625 (Supreme Court of India) — Cited for the constitutional balance between fundamental rights and Directive Principles.
• M.Karunanidhi vs Union of India, (1979) 3 SCC 431 (Supreme Court of India) — Cited for principles governing repugnancy between competing enactments.