Article 44 is one of those provisions that sounds straightforward but never really was. It says the state shall “endeavour” to get a uniform civil code for all citizens. Marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption — same laws for everyone, regardless of religion.
But it’s in the Directive Principles. So it’s a goal, not something you can go to court and demand. The framers knew the idea would spark tension, so they left it as a gentle nudge for future governments.
Then came Shah Bano’s case in 1985. A Muslim woman won maintenance under the secular CrPC, and the Supreme Court openly wished for a UCC. That judgment set off such a political firestorm that the government passed a law to undo the ruling’s effect. After that, the debate stopped being just legal. It became identity politics.
Goa already lives with a common civil code, inherited from the Portuguese. And in 2024, Uttarakhand passed its own. Supporters say it’s about equality and shedding regressive personal laws. Opponents say it’s an attack on religious freedom and minority culture. Honestly both sides have a point. That’s why this issue never really gets resolved — it just keeps resurfacing.
This article has been researched and prepared by Devansh Dhama, Legal Research Intern at LegalRath.