Site icon LegalOnus

Secularism and Personal Laws: A Constitutional Dilemma in India

ayush chandra
ChatGPT Image Jun 26, 2025, 09_14_50 PM
Spread the love

This article has been written by Preeti, Pursuing Ph.D from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra[1]

***This article has been selected for LegalOnus Law Journal (LLJ) Volume 1 Issue 8 2025

Abstract

India’s constitutional framework is founded on the ideals of secularism, equality, and justice. However, the existence of religion-based personal laws governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption poses a significant constitutional dilemma. This paper investigates the complex relationship between secularism and personal laws in India, exploring how the Indian state negotiates its secular identity while allowing religious communities to retain autonomy over personal matters. Unlike the Western model of secularism that promotes a clear separation between religion and state, Indian secularism accommodates religious diversity within a pluralistic framework. Yet, this accommodation has led to legal fragmentation, wherein individuals are governed by different laws based on their religious identity, resulting in inconsistencies and inequalities, especially in matters affecting women and marginalized groups.

The study traces the historical evolution of personal laws during colonial rule and post-independence constitutional debates. It evaluates key constitutional provisions such as Articles 25–28 (freedom of religion) and Article 44 (Directive Principle on the Uniform Civil Code), alongside a critical analysis of landmark judgments by the Indian judiciary that have attempted to balance secular principles with religious freedom. The paper also explores the feasibility and implications of implementing a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), a move long debated in Indian political and legal discourse.

By incorporating comparative perspectives from other secular democracies such as Turkey and France, the research sheds light on alternative models of managing religion in personal law. Ultimately, the paper argues for a harmonized approach that preserves religious freedom while ensuring constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. The findings suggest that a rights-based reform of personal laws, grounded in constitutional morality and guided by judicial interpretation, offers a pragmatic path toward resolving this enduring constitutional dilemma.

Introduction

India, as a constitutional democracy, is built upon the foundational values of justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. One of its most distinctive features is its unique model of secularism, which is fundamentally different from the Western conception of a rigid separation between church and state. In India, secularism embodies the principle of equal respect and treatment for all religions, ensuring that the state neither promotes nor discriminates against any religion. However, the coexistence of secularism with religion-specific personal laws has given rise to one of the most complex constitutional dilemmas in India’s legal and political history.

Personal laws in India govern crucial aspects of life such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, guardianship, and adoption, and they vary significantly across religious communities. These laws are largely derived from religious scriptures and customary practices. As a result, individuals belonging to different religious communities are governed by different legal regimes for personal matters. This legal pluralism, while reflecting India’s socio-cultural diversity, has led to inconsistencies in the application of fundamental rights, especially those concerning gender justice and equality.

The Constitution of India, adopted in 1950, embodies both the commitment to secularism and the recognition of religious freedom. Articles 25 to 28 guarantee individuals the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, while Article 44—enshrined in the Directive Principles of State Policy—urges the state to endeavor toward a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) for all citizens, thereby promoting legal uniformity irrespective of religion. The tension between these constitutional mandates lies at the heart of the secularism-personal law conundrum.

Over the decades, this conflict has played out in several landmark judicial decisions, political debates, and social movements. Cases such as Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985), Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995), and Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) have brought the dilemma into sharp focus, forcing the judiciary to navigate a fine line between respecting religious autonomy and enforcing constitutional norms of equality and justice.

This paper aims to explore the historical evolution and constitutional dimensions of secularism and personal laws in India. It seeks to answer the critical question: Can a secular state justify the continued application of religion-based personal laws that may violate constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination? In doing so, the paper examines the role of the judiciary, the political implications of personal law reform, the debate surrounding the Uniform Civil Code, and the comparative experiences of other secular nations. The study concludes by advocating for a balanced and rights-oriented approach to legal reform that respects India’s pluralistic ethos while ensuring constitutional consistency and social justice.

Concept of Secularism: A Global and Indian Perspective

Secularism, as a political and constitutional concept, has evolved differently across global democracies. Broadly understood, secularism implies the separation of religion from the state and public affairs. However, this separation is neither uniform nor absolute. In the Western context—especially in countries like France and the United States—secularism entails a strict demarcation between church and state, often referred to as the “wall of separation” doctrine. The state in such systems is prohibited from favoring or interfering with any religion, thereby ensuring the neutrality of governance in religious matters (Bhargava, 2010).

Western Secularism

In France, the principle of laïcité enshrines a rigid form of secularism, emphasizing the exclusion of religion from the public sphere. The French state does not recognize religious institutions in its civic processes, and religious expression in state-funded institutions is strictly regulated. Similarly, in the United States, the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits both the establishment of religion and the restriction of free religious practice, thereby enforcing state neutrality in religious affairs. Both models underscore a privatized understanding of religion, where individual belief is tolerated but kept out of legislative and policy-making domains.

Indian Secularism

Contrastingly, Indian secularism is characterized by the principle of sarva dharma sambhava—meaning equal respect for all religions. This inclusive model does not insist on a watertight separation but rather accommodates religious plurality within a constitutional framework. The Indian state engages with religion through a model of principled distance, wherein it may intervene in religious practices that violate constitutional rights, such as caste-based discrimination or gender inequality (Mandal, 2016).

Indian secularism was shaped by the country’s colonial experience, religious diversity, and the imperative to ensure national unity post-independence. The drafters of the Indian Constitution chose to safeguard religious freedoms under Articles 25–28 while also recognizing the need to reform unjust or oppressive religious customs. Unlike the Western model, which seeks minimal state interference, the Indian model permits state engagement to regulate religious institutions and practices in the interest of public welfare and social justice.

This differential treatment of secularism raises unique challenges. While the Indian model appears more inclusive and tolerant, it also leads to tensions between the state’s duty to uphold constitutional rights and its obligation to respect religious freedom. This becomes particularly complex in the realm of personal laws, where religious doctrines directly impact civil rights and liberties. For instance, personal laws on marriage or divorce that discriminate against women can be challenged as violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, even though they are protected under religious freedom.[2]

Secularism in the Indian Constitution

Although the term “secular” was inserted into the Preamble of the Indian Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976, the idea was always embedded in the constitutional fabric. The Supreme Court of India has consistently held secularism to be a basic feature of the Constitution, incapable of being amended or abrogated (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, 1973). However, the state’s dual role—as a neutral arbitrator and a regulator of religious practices—continues to evoke critical debate, especially when religious autonomy clashes with constitutional morality.[3]

Thus, the Indian experience with secularism is not one of exclusion but of regulated inclusion, where religious freedom is protected, but subject to the overarching authority of constitutional values. This creates an inherently dynamic relationship between secularism and personal laws, one that is constantly evolving through legislative enactments, judicial interpretation, and socio-political discourse.

Evolution of Personal Laws in India

India’s legal framework concerning personal laws is deeply rooted in its historical, religious, and colonial past. Personal laws in India are religion-specific codes that govern matters such as marriage, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, adoption, and guardianship. The evolution of these laws represents a gradual fusion of religious customs, colonial administrative practices, and post-independence legal reforms.

Pre-Colonial and Colonial Legacy

Before British colonialism, Indian society was governed largely by religious customs and community-based normative systems. Hindu law was derived from Dharmashastras, Smritis, and customary practices, while Muslim law, or Shariat, was based on the Quran, Hadith, and interpretations by Islamic jurists. These laws were not codified and varied across regions and sects. The legal systems were pluralistic, with caste, tribe, and religious community all playing a role in determining applicable norms.[4]

With the advent of colonial rule, the British introduced the policy of non-interference in religious matters but paradoxically also undertook selective codification of religious laws. The establishment of personal law as a formal legal category began under British administration. Hindu and Muslim personal laws were codified for ease of administration, and civil courts were empowered to apply religious law in personal matters. This gave religious leaders significant interpretative authority and institutionalized religious distinctions in law.

Codified Hindu personal law came into effect with a series of legislative acts, including the Hindu Widow Remarriage Act, 1856, and the Hindu Inheritance Act, 1929. Similarly, Muslim personal law was preserved under the Shariat Application Act, 1937, which mandated the application of Muslim personal law to Muslims in personal matters. This codification process laid the groundwork for the communalization of personal law is a trend that continued even after independence.

Post-Independence Developments

After independence, India adopted a secular Constitution that envisaged equality before the law (Article 14) and prohibited discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth (Article 15). Despite these egalitarian ideals, the framers of the Constitution retained the system of religion-specific personal laws, reflecting a pragmatic compromise between uniform legal norms and religious sensitivities.

In the early years of the Republic, the Indian state took bold steps to reform Hindu personal law through the Hindu Code Bills. This resulted in the enactment of:

These laws applied to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs and introduced modern principles such as monogamy, divorce, women’s right to inheritance, and equal guardianship rights. However, similar reforms were not pursued in Muslim personal law, largely due to political sensitivities and the apprehension of alienating the minority community.

This asymmetrical approach led to a dichotomy where Hindus were subjected to significant legal reform while Muslims and other communities continued to be governed by uncodified or minimally codified religious laws. Consequently, the Indian legal system today operates as a patchwork of personal laws based on religious identity is a condition that has been repeatedly challenged for violating the constitutional principles of equality and secularism.

Codification vs. Reform

The evolution of personal laws in India thus reflects a complex interplay between the need to respect religious autonomy and the demand for legal modernization. While codification was initially introduced to ensure administrative efficiency under colonial rule, it ultimately contributed to the ossification of religious identity within the legal system. The absence of uniformity has led to discrepancies in the protection of individual rights, especially for women, and continues to fuel the debate surrounding the implementation of a Uniform Civil Code.

Constitutional Provisions on Secularism and Religion

The Constitution of India enshrines the principle of secularism as one of its foundational values. While the word “secular” was formally inserted into the Preamble by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, the Indian Constitution has always embodied secular ideals through its provisions that promote religious freedom, equality before the law, and protection from religious discrimination. However, the juxtaposition of these ideals with the continued existence of religion-based personal laws creates a constitutional dilemma that challenges the balance between religious liberty and state neutrality.

The Preamble and the Idea of Secularism

The Preamble to the Constitution, which serves as a guiding light to interpret the other provisions, declares India to be a “sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.” This insertion of the term “secular” in 1976 reinforced the state’s commitment to maintaining a principled distance from all religions and ensuring equal treatment irrespective of faith. Indian secularism, unlike its Western counterpart, does not advocate a strict separation of religion and state but rather promotes the peaceful coexistence of diverse religious communities within the framework of the Constitution.

Fundamental Rights and Religious Freedom

The most significant constitutional guarantee for religious freedom is found in Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution:

These provisions highlight the Indian Constitution’s dual commitment to protecting religious freedom and enabling state intervention when necessary to uphold equality and justice.

Article 14 and 15: Equality and Non-discrimination

Alongside religious freedom, the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and protection from discrimination:

For instance, practices such as triple talaq and polygamy in Muslim personal law, or denial of coparcenary rights to Hindu daughters (prior to the 2005 amendment), have been contested as violative of Articles 14 and 15.

Directive Principles and Article 44: The Uniform Civil Code

The Directive Principles of State Policy, although non-justiciable, lay down the ideals that the state must strive to achieve. Among them, Article 44 directs the state to endeavor to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) throughout the territory of India. The UCC, if implemented, would replace personal laws based on religion with a common set of civil laws applicable to all citizens, irrespective of their faith.

However, the UCC has remained a subject of intense political and social debate, with opponents viewing it as an intrusion into religious freedom and proponents arguing it is essential for national integration and gender justice. The absence of legislative will to implement Article 44 has perpetuated the constitutional inconsistency between secularism and legal pluralism.

Judicial Interpretation of Secularism

The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held secularism to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Court ruled that secularism is a basic feature that cannot be amended, and that the state must treat all religions with equal respect and distance. However, the Court has also upheld the state’s power to reform religious practices that contravene fundamental rights.

Thus, the constitutional framework both enables religious freedom and mandates the state to uphold equality and social reform, creating a dynamic space where the principles of secularism and personal laws coexist, albeit often uneasily.

The Conflict: Secularism vs. Personal Laws

The coexistence of religion-based personal laws and the constitutional principle of secularism lies at the heart of India’s legal and moral dilemma. While the Constitution enshrines secularism and equality as its guiding principles, the continuation of religious personal laws—many of which contain discriminatory provisions—poses serious questions about constitutional consistency, judicial fairness, and the state’s role in social reform.

Legal Pluralism vs. Constitutional Uniformity

India’s legal system permits legal pluralism, where different religious communities are governed by their own personal laws. These laws derive authority from religion rather than from a uniform statutory code, which makes them inconsistent with the Constitution’s equality provisions. For example, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, and Parsi communities all have distinct laws relating to marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance, and maintenance. This pluralism, while acknowledging India’s cultural diversity, results in differential treatment of citizens based solely on religious affiliation.

The Indian Constitution, however, also provides for constitutional uniformity through Articles 14, 15, and 44. The right to equality (Article 14) and non-discrimination (Article 15) are enforceable fundamental rights, while the Uniform Civil Code (Article 44) is a non-enforceable directive principle. This creates a tension between individual rights and group rights, particularly when personal laws sanctioned by religion contravene fundamental rights.

Gender Inequality in Personal Laws                                    

One of the starkest manifestations of the secularism-personal law conflict is in the domain of gender justice. Many personal laws, especially in their uncodified forms, perpetuate patriarchal norms and place women at a disadvantage.

These instances reflect how religion-based personal laws often conflict with constitutional values of equality, dignity, and personal liberty.

Judicial Activism and Constitutional Morality

To mitigate this conflict, the judiciary has often stepped in to ensure that personal laws conform to constitutional morality. Courts have repeatedly held that the right to religious freedom under Article 25 is subject to other fundamental rights. In Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018), [6]the Supreme Court emphasized that constitutional morality must prevail over social morality or customary practices, especially when such practices infringe upon fundamental rights.

However, judicial intervention in personal laws is met with resistance from religious groups who view such reforms as an attack on their cultural autonomy. This has led to a recurring tension between religious freedom and judicially imposed equality, with courts attempting to balance both.

Lack of Legislative Uniformity

Another key factor aggravating the conflict is the absence of a Uniform Civil Code, as envisioned in Article 44. Despite being a constitutional directive, the UCC has not been implemented due to political hesitancy and fears of alienating religious minorities. This legislative inaction has entrenched religious identities in civil matters, thereby creating parallel legal systems that undermine the ideal of equal citizenship.

As a result, the Indian state finds itself in a paradoxical position committed to secularism and equality, yet reluctant to enforce legal uniformity that would realize these very ideals. This has led scholars to describe India as a “pragmatic secular state”, where political considerations often override constitutional imperatives.

Cultural Autonomy vs. Constitutional Conformity

The ongoing debate over secularism and personal laws fundamentally boils down to a conflict between cultural autonomy and constitutional conformity. On one hand, preserving personal laws respects the religious and cultural identity of various communities. On the other, allowing these laws to exist unchanged often perpetuates inequality and discrimination. The challenge, therefore, is to strike a balance that upholds constitutional principles without undermining religious freedom.

Judicial Responses and Landmark Cases

The Indian judiciary has played a central role in interpreting the complex relationship between secularism and personal laws. Faced with legislative inaction on implementing a Uniform Civil Code and reforming discriminatory religious practices, courts have frequently invoked constitutional morality and fundamental rights to reshape personal laws in accordance with the Constitution. Through landmark judgments, the judiciary has carved a delicate path between respecting religious freedom and ensuring equality and justice for all citizens.

1. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)[7]

This case marked a watershed moment in the conflict between Muslim personal law and constitutional rights. Shah Bano, a 62-year-old Muslim woman, was divorced by her husband and denied maintenance. She filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which applies to all citizens, seeking alimony. The Supreme Court held that a divorced Muslim woman was entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, irrespective of personal law.

Significance:
The Court emphasized that personal laws must yield to the provisions of a secular statute when it comes to basic human rights like maintenance. This judgment sparked nationwide debate and opposition from conservative Muslim groups, leading to the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which diluted the effect of the Shah Bano judgment.

2. Daniel Latifi v. Union of India (2001)

This case challenged the constitutional validity of the 1986 Act passed in the aftermath of Shah Bano. The Court upheld the Act but interpreted it to mean that the husband is liable to make a “reasonable and fair provision” for the future of the divorced wife, within the iddat period itself.

Significance:
The judgment cleverly preserved the spirit of Shah Bano by ensuring that the divorced woman’s rights were not rendered illusory, even within the boundaries of Muslim personal law.

3. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)[8]

In this historic case, the practice of triple talaq (instant divorce) was challenged by Shayara Bano, a Muslim woman who had been arbitrarily divorced by her husband. The Supreme Court, in a 3:2 majority, held the practice to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14.

Significance:
This judgment affirmed that personal laws must adhere to the constitutional guarantee of equality and that even religious practices could be invalidated if they offend fundamental rights. It paved the way for the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which criminalized triple talaq

4. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018)[9]

This case dealt with the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple, which was prohibited to females of menstruating age under a religious custom. The Supreme Court struck down the ban, holding it unconstitutional and discriminatory.

Significance:
The Court asserted that constitutional morality must prevail over patriarchal religious practices and reaffirmed that the right to worship cannot be denied on the basis of biological attributes.

5. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995)[10]

In this case, Hindu men converted to Islam solely to marry again without divorcing their first wives, exploiting the permissibility of polygamy in Muslim law. The Supreme Court held that such conversions were done in bad faith and did not dissolve the first marriage.

Significance:
The Court strongly advocated for the Uniform Civil Code, calling the absence of a UCC a major obstacle to national integration and gender justice.

Judicial Trends and Challenges

Over the decades, Indian courts have consistently reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution over personal laws. They have developed the doctrine of “essential religious practices” to distinguish between core tenets of faith and regressive practices that can be reformed. However, judicial activism in the domain of personal laws often faces criticism for overstepping into the legislative domain and provoking communal backlash.

Despite this, the judiciary remains the most active agent in harmonizing religious laws with constitutional values. In the absence of decisive legislative reform, courts have shouldered the responsibility of ensuring that personal laws do not operate as instruments of discrimination or injustice.

The Debate on Uniform Civil Code

The implementation of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has been one of the most contentious and politically sensitive issues in independent India. Enshrined in Article 44 of the Directive Principles of State Policy, the UCC aims to replace religion-based personal laws with a common set of civil laws governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, and maintenance for all citizens, irrespective of religion. While the Constitution envisions it as a step toward ensuring equality and national integration, its realization has been stalled by fierce political, religious, and cultural debates.

Understanding Article 44

Article 44 of the Constitution reads:
“The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.”

Although non-justiciable, Article 44 reflects the framers’ intent to promote national unity and gender equality through legal uniformity in civil matters. However, the fact that personal laws were retained and not immediately codified into a UCC reveals a deliberate choice to prioritize religious harmony and gradual reform.

Arguments in Favour of the UCC

  1. Equality and Non-discrimination:
    Personal laws based on religion often violate the constitutional guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 15. A UCC would ensure uniform rights and obligations for all citizens, especially in matters like marriage and inheritance, promoting gender justice and ending discriminatory practices.
  2. National Integration:
    A single set of laws applicable to all citizens would foster a sense of unity and common citizenship, reducing communal divisions and legal fragmentation.
  3. Secularism:
    Implementing the UCC would reaffirm the secular character of the Indian state by separating religion from law in civil matters, thereby ensuring that the state does not endorse or perpetuate religious inequalities.
  4. Judicial Advocacy:
    Courts have repeatedly emphasized the importance of a UCC. In Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995), the Supreme Court lamented the lack of progress on Article 44 and highlighted how the absence of a UCC facilitates misuse of religious conversion to evade personal law obligations.
  5. Global Norms:
    Most modern democracies operate under a single civil code. Adopting a UCC would align India with international human rights standards and bolster its commitment to democratic and secular principles.

Arguments Against the UCC

  1. Threat to Religious Freedom:
    Critics argue that enforcing a UCC may infringe upon Articles 25 and 26, which guarantee freedom of religion and the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.
  2. Cultural Diversity and Pluralism:
    India is a pluralistic society with immense religious, cultural, and ethnic diversity. Imposing a uniform code might be seen as erasing minority identities and enforcing a majoritarian viewpoint.
  3. Fear of Political Motives:
    The demand for a UCC is often perceived as politically motivated, especially by minority communities who fear it will be used to impose Hindu cultural norms under the guise of uniformity.
  4. Practical Challenges:
    Drafting a single code that is acceptable to all religious communities and respects India’s diversity is an enormous legislative and administrative challenge.
  5. Need for Internal Reform First:
    Some scholars argue that instead of imposing a UCC, the focus should be on internal reform of all personal laws to bring them in line with constitutional values. This gradualist approach may be more culturally sensitive and politically feasible.

Goa: An Exception

The State of Goa presents a unique case as it follows the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867, which functions as a de facto Uniform Civil Code for all its citizens, regardless of religion. The Goa example is often cited as evidence that a UCC is possible and can coexist with religious harmony. However, critics point out that even the Goan code contains exceptions for specific communities, and its success may not be easily replicable nationwide.[11]

The Way Forward: Towards a Just and Inclusive UCC

Given the deep-rooted sensitivities surrounding personal laws, a phased and consultative approach to the UCC is essential. Some scholars propose starting with optional civil codes or common minimum standards in areas like marriage registration, maintenance, and guardianship.[12] Public education, community participation, and trust-building measures must accompany legal reform to ensure that the UCC is not perceived as coercive or exclusionary.

Case Studies and Comparative Perspectives

India’s experience with secularism and personal laws is unique, but examining both internal and international examples provides valuable insights into how legal systems can reconcile cultural diversity with constitutional equality.

Case Study 1: Hindu Personal Law Reform

After independence, the Indian government prioritized reform of Hindu personal laws. The Hindu Code Bills, passed between 1955–1956, led to the codification of family laws through the Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. These laws introduced legal equality for women in areas of divorce, inheritance, and guardianship.

Importantly, the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act was a landmark step that gave daughters equal coparcenary rights in ancestral property, correcting centuries of patriarchal inheritance norms. However, reform was selective—similar changes were not extended to other communities, creating asymmetries within the legal system.

Case Study 2: Muslim Personal Law and Resistance to Reform

Unlike Hindu laws, Muslim personal law in India remains largely uncodified and governed by the Shariat. Attempts to reform Muslim personal law have met with strong resistance from conservative religious groups and political stakeholders. The backlash against the Shah Bano judgment (1985), followed by the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, illustrated the political sensitivity surrounding Islamic law.

Despite that, the Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) case revived the debate. The Court declared the practice of triple talaq unconstitutional, paving the way for the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, which criminalized the practice. While this was a significant move toward gender justice, other aspects like polygamy and inheritance inequalities remain untouched, showcasing the piecemeal nature of reform.

Comparative Insights: Turkey, Tunisia, and Indonesia

Other Muslim-majority countries offer relevant models:

These examples show that personal law reform is not inherently anti-religious, and secularism need not exclude religious voices—it can accommodate pluralism while advancing equality.

Recommendations and the Way Forward

To move toward constitutional ideals without alienating communities, a measured and participatory approach to personal law reform is essential.

1. Gradual and Inclusive Reform

A sudden imposition of a Uniform Civil Code may provoke backlash. A phased approach—starting with reforms in family laws affecting all communities (e.g., maintenance, child custody, inheritance rights for women)—is more pragmatic. The state could consider introducing an optional UCC, as suggested by the Law Commission in 2018, giving citizens the choice to opt in.

2. Codification of All Personal Laws

Many inequalities stem from uncodified customs. Codifying all personal laws like in the Hindu context—can ensure transparency and make them subject to constitutional scrutiny. Codification also offers a legal basis for reform without undermining cultural identity.

3. Judicial Oversight and Constitutional Morality

The judiciary should continue to test personal laws against the touchstone of constitutional morality, as in Shayara Bano, Sabarimala, and Navtej Singh Johar. Religious freedom (Article 25) is not absolute and must yield to fundamental rights like equality (Article 14) and dignity (Article 21).

4. Public Education and Interfaith Dialogue

Misconceptions about the UCC being anti-minority or pro-majoritarian need to be addressed through public discourse, education, and dialogue. The state and civil society should create platforms where religious leaders, scholars, and citizens engage meaningfully with legal reform.

5. Political Will and Constitutional Commitment

UCC has remained a constitutional promise for over seven decades. Implementation requires political consensus, not just legislative power. Reforms must be driven by constitutional values, not electoral motives, to ensure legitimacy and acceptance across communities.

Conclusion

India’s journey toward balancing secularism and personal laws is emblematic of its broader struggle to harmonize diversity with unity, faith with reason, and tradition with equality. The persistence of discriminatory personal laws—particularly in matters of gender—continues to undermine the constitutional ethos of equality, justice, and secularism.

Judicial pronouncements have played a vital role in pushing personal laws toward constitutional alignment, but true reform demands democratic engagement and legislative clarity. A Uniform Civil Code is not a goal to be enforced in haste, but a constitutional ideal to be realized through gradual, inclusive, and consultative reform.

A model of reform rooted in constitutional morality, pluralism, and equal citizenship can help India resolve the tension between secularism and personal laws. Only then can the constitutional dream of equal justice under one law be fully realized—without eroding the plural identity of Indian society.

References

[1] Authored by Preeti pursuing Ph.D from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra 

[2] Mandal, S. (2016). Sarva Dharma Sambhava and the Indian model of secularism

[3] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461

[4] Menski, W. (2001). Modern Indian Family Law. Oxford University Press

[5] Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1

[6] Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1

[7] Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, 1985 SCR (3) 844

[8] Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1

[9] Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1

[10] Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 635

[11] Mansuri, N. (2020). Uniform Civil Code and secularism: Revisiting Article 44 in contemporary India. Journal of Law and Policy, 16(2), 102–115

[12] Law Commission of India. (2018). Consultation paper on reform of family law. Retrieved from https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in

[13] Routledge, L. (2013). Secularism and legal pluralism in India: A constitutional balancing act. South Asia Review, 34(3), 19–35


Spread the love
Exit mobile version