ucc-banner-3
All India

Uniform Civil Code 2026: Why People of India are Opposing It.

Bengali

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill is set to be introduced in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly this coming August. Since a national-level Uniform Civil Code has not yet been enacted in India, the Gujarat Uniform Civil Code Bill 2026, Assam’s UCC Act, and Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code Act 2024 are being taken as the basis for drafting this bill. As in other states, tribal communities in West Bengal are being kept outside the purview of the Uniform Civil Code.

Support Bengal Frontier
Help us tell the stories that matter.
logo
DONATE NOW
Powered By Cashfree logo

Civil law primarily refers to laws regarding citizens’ marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, and related matters.

In tribal society, marriages and divorces are not registered, and village chiefs have the final say. Issues like inheritance and adoption are also not entirely clear-cut. The tribal population in West Bengal is around 5.3 million, accounting for approximately 5.8% of the total population. How it will be possible to achieve ‘One Nation, One Law’ while keeping such a large population out of the Uniform Civil Code remains a subject of study and discussion.

Furthermore, if a practice has been prevalent for a long time within the Hindu community in West Bengal, it can be assumed that such practices will be granted recognition under the Uniform Civil Code. For instance, in Uttarakhand, the customary practice of Draupadi marriage (polyandry)—where a wife has multiple husbands—prevalent among a specific section of Hindus, was granted recognition under the Uniform Civil Code.

Against this backdrop, the first question that arises is this—implementing “One Nation, One Law” or a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) across the entire country has been a long-standing pledge of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Currently, the BJP is in power in 16 states as well as in the Indian Union (the Central Government). So, why is the BJP introducing individual Uniform Civil Codes in just a few states instead of implementing a centralized Uniform Civil Code across the whole country? How will the resulting issues faced by the general public be resolved?

For example, consider families whose children have been living in Bangalore or Chennai for a long time due to work and possess their Aadhaar cards and Voter IDs there—meaning they are currently citizens [residents] of Bangalore or Chennai. If a Uniform Civil Code is not implemented across all of India and is introduced only in West Bengal, how will the inheritance be distributed if a member of such a family passes away? After all, those children are not current residents of West Bengal. Similarly, South Indians who have been residing in West Bengal for a long time will face the exact same problem.

Why, then, is the Bharatiya Janata Party attempting to introduce a Uniform Civil Code in West Bengal rather than implementing it centrally?

The answer is very simple: even though the BJP is in power at the Center, it is currently unable to implement a nationwide Uniform Civil Code, which is why it is not doing so. This is because the Law Commission of India opposed the Uniform Civil Code, calling it unnecessary and undesirable.

The Law Commission’s position on the Uniform Civil Code

The Law Commission of India is the supreme policymaking body on legal matters under the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. It conducts legal research either suo motu (on its own initiative) or upon reference by the Central Government, and submits reports with necessary recommendations to the government regarding legal reforms, the enactment of new laws, and the review of existing legislation.

In 2014, the Narendra Modi government came to power at the Center, and under government instructions, the 21st Law Commission was constituted. The government directed the Law Commission to review the necessary aspects regarding the formulation of a Uniform Civil Code.

The 21st Law Commission submitted its report to the Government of India in August 2018. In this report, the Commission expressed its view that a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is “neither necessary nor desirable at this stage.” According to the Commission, unity in diversity is the core spirit of India’s robust democracy. The diversity present in Indian culture should be celebrated. However, necessary reforms should be carried out to eliminate the prevailing inequalities within it; diversity itself does not equate to discrimination, and such diversity should never be erased by introducing a Uniform Civil Code. Most countries around the world are currently following this path.

The Commission stated —

“While diversity of Indian culture can and should be celebrated, specific groups, or weaker sections of the society must not be dis-privileged in the process. Resolution of this conflict does not mean abolition of difference. This Commission has therefore dealt with laws that are discriminatory rather than providing a uniform civil code which is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage. Most countries are now moving towards recognition of difference, and the mere existence of difference does not imply discrimination, but is indicative of a robust democracy.”

Furthermore, the Law Commission strongly presented its well-considered views on various related matters in its report.

The Commission stated that effort must be made to best preserve and protect the diversity and plurality that constitute the nation’s cultural and social fabric.

According to the Commission, there are also many issues that frequently surface in public debates, but which cannot—and need not—be resolved through legislation.

The term secularism holds meaning only when it ensures that expressions of “difference”—whether regional or religious—are not drowned out by the dominant voice of the majority; while simultaneously ensuring that no discriminatory practice can hide behind the veil of “religion” to gain legitimacy.

The essence of secularism in India lies in recognizing and preserving people of diverse languages and varied beliefs, and uniting them to build an integrated and cohesive India.

Warning the citizens of India, the Commission stated—

“When enacting laws, it must be remembered that our desire for uniformity should not pose a threat to the territorial integrity of the country.“

However, putting the recommendations of the 21st Law Commission in cold storage, the Central BJP government constituted the 22nd Law Commission in June 2023 and asked it to reconsider the Uniform Civil Code and submit a fresh report.

The 22nd Law Commission’s term ended on August 31, 2024, without it offering any opinion or submitting any report on the Uniform Civil Code.

This could mean either that the 22nd Law Commission supported the earlier report of the 21st Law Commission, or that the BJP government exerted unethical pressure on the Commission—preventing it from functioning independently, which is why it expressed no opinion.

At present, it is time to appoint the 23rd Law Commission, but the BJP government has not yet been able to constitute it.

Under such circumstances, unable to implement a Uniform Civil Code centrally across India, the BJP government is now seeking to introduce a Uniform Civil Code in West Bengal to retain its hardline Hindutva vote bank.

Bypassing the recommendations of the Law Commission of India—the supreme policymaking body on legal matters in the country—to implement a Uniform Civil Code in West Bengal has raised considerable doubt in the minds of the people of Bengal regarding its justification.

We will now discuss the core issues within the Uniform Civil Code that have sparked debate.

Marriage

Among Hindus and other non-Muslim communities in India, there is a common perception that Muslim women live in extremely pitiable conditions under Islamic Sharia. It is believed that most Muslim men, if not all, marry four wives and issue triple talaq to their wives whenever they wish simply by pronouncing “talaq, talaq, talaq.” Therefore, enforcing a Uniform Civil Code would put an end to polygamy among Muslim men and improve the social status of Muslim women.

When the 21st Law Commission sought public feedback on the Uniform Civil Code in November 2016, it received over 75,378 responses. Surprisingly, the majority of these responses focused on triple talaq within the Muslim community. Muslims are a minority community in India, constituting roughly 14–20% of the total population, and most among them do not have the resources or capability to submit their views to the Law Commission. Thus, it can be assumed that those who wrote to the Law Commission regarding Muslim personal law were predominantly from the majority Hindu community.

It is quite astonishing that members of the majority Hindu community are deeply concerned about the laws, customs, and practices of Muslim society in India, yet show no concern for the injustices and unethical practices occurring within Hindu society itself.

In India, the human rights of lower-caste Hindus are repeatedly violated. They face physical and psychological torture under various pretexts, and lower-caste Hindu women are treated as the personal property of upper-caste men.

Morena District, Madhya Pradesh (January 2025): Due to a land dispute, upper-caste individuals brutally assaulted a Dalit woman and her daughter in public on the street, dragging and harassing them.

Hathras District, Uttar Pradesh (September 2020): Four men from the Thakur community were accused of brutally gang-raping and murdering a young Dalit woman. It was alleged that the police cremated her body in the middle of the night without the family’s presence to destroy evidence.

Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu: A Dalit woman was severely beaten and molested simply for “accidentally” touching an upper-caste woman at a ration shop, as recorded in reports.

According to research by international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and others, social bias within the justice system and local pressure frequently deprive lower-caste women of justice, leaving crime rates at an alarming level.

Data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) indicates that crimes against Dalit and Adivasi women, including sexual violence, are increasing significantly every year in India.

In many states across India, the Devadasi system still persists among Hindus. In 2008, 40,600 Devadasis were identified in Karnataka. Despite the BJP coming to power at the Center in 2014, there were over 90,000 Devadasis in Karnataka in 2021, 20% of whom were under the age of 18. A 2021 report stated that there were over 450,000 Devadasis across India at that time. Even today, in 2026, the Devadasi practice exists among Hindus.

In India, the belief in witch-hunting (Daini belief) remains prevalent among Hindu and tribal communities; every year, many innocent elderly women are beaten to death on suspicion of witchcraft.

In this India, practices like human sacrifice and child sacrifice still occur among Hindus.

Yet surprisingly, no one from the Hindu community submitted complaints to the Law Commission regarding these issues; their primary concern remained centered around polygamy and triple talaq in Muslim society.

But how justified is this concern of the majority community?

We have before us data from the Government of India’s 2011 Census—

According to the 2011 data, the total population of India was 1,210,854,977.

The Hindu population was 966,257,353—approximately 80% of the total population.

And the Muslim population was 172,245,158—approximately 14% of the total population.

The total number of married men and women in India was 579,584,783—48% of the total population.

Among them, the number of married Hindu men and women was 471,397,900—49% of the total Hindu population, which is higher than the national average of 48%.

On the other hand, the number of married Muslim men and women was 73,681,901—43% of the total Muslim population, which in percentage terms is far lower than both the Hindu percentage and the national average.

We know that there are millions of Hindu monks (sadhus) and many Hindu politicians in India who do not marry—a phenomenon not typically seen within the Muslim community. Even then, the percentage of married Hindu men and women is significantly higher than that of married Muslim men and women. This is truly astonishing.

If all married Hindu men were content with just one marriage and most Muslim men married more than once, the outcome would have been the exact opposite; in percentage terms, the married Muslim population would have been far higher than the married Hindu population. This indicates that although polygamy among Hindu men is legally prohibited, in reality, it has not been completely eliminated, and in percentage terms, their numbers exceed those of Muslims.

The 21st Law Commission of India also noted this point in its report—

“Anthropological evidence has shown that bigamous arrangements among Hindus continue to exist and have local recognition despite their being a law against it.“

The Law Commission further stated that—

“Although polygamy is permitted within Islam, it is a rare practice among Indian Muslims; on the other hand, it is frequently misused by persons of other religions who convert to Islam solely for the purpose of solemnising another marriage rather than being Muslim themselves.”

According to the Government of India’s sample data from 2019–21 (NFHS-5, 2019–21), the rate of polygamy in India is highest among the Scheduled Tribes (ST) community (1.5%) and highest in the northeastern states of India, namely Meghalaya (6.1%), Mizoram (4.1%), and Arunachal Pradesh (3.9%). We know that the presence of the Muslim community in these states is virtually nonexistent.

Grounds for Objection to the Uniform Marriage Law

Simply prohibiting male polygamy through legislation will only increase extramarital affairs and adultery in society. Although the Hindu Marriage Act makes it a legally punishable offense for a Hindu man to have multiple wives at the same time, polygamy among Hindu men could not be completely eradicated—as noted in the 21st Law Commission’s report.

For instance:

Despite being entirely illegal under Hindu law, these events occurred socially.

A case came to light in Gurgaon where a family court made provisions allowing a Hindu man to maintain a wife and a live-in partner simultaneously.

Although the Uniform Civil Code prohibits male polygamy, it does not ban promiscuity among married or unmarried men and women. Currently, sex work is a court-recognized profession in India. In a landmark 2022 ruling, the Supreme Court of India stated that sex work is a “profession” and that sex workers are entitled to equal protection and dignity under the law, just like any other citizen. The court directed the police not to harass or file criminal charges against consenting adult sex workers.

A report identified Kolkata as Asia’s largest center for the sex trade. In Kolkata alone, there are over 60,000 female sex workers, while across West Bengal, that number exceeds 455,000—with married men constituting the majority of their clients. It can be estimated that several hundred thousand men visit them as clients daily, and this is not a legal offense.

While the Uniform Civil Code speaks of prohibiting polygamy, it does not address ending adultery. In 2018, the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, extramarital affairs or adultery are no longer criminal offenses in India. This means the police cannot arrest anyone, nor can fines or prison sentences be imposed for this reason.

According to the Supreme Court, Article 21 of the Constitution grants every citizen of India the right to life and personal liberty. Which person two consenting adults choose to be with is strictly their personal decision.

This is precisely where the objection of the general public lies. If a man, unable to control his sexual drives, enters into a marriage, it is treated as a legal crime. Yet being adulterous, living in a live-in relationship, engaging in extramarital affairs, or visiting sex workers are not legal offenses.

In most Muslim countries, including Pakistan and Bangladesh, live-in relationships, extramarital affairs, and sex work are strictly prohibited by law, carrying severe penal provisions.

Taking all these factors into consideration, the 21st Law Commission of India, in its report, suggested imposing certain strict restrictions on polygamy among Muslim men rather than enforcing a Uniform Civil Code to abolish it entirely. Furthermore, acknowledging the international context of Islamic law for the first time, the Law Commission recommended following the legal framework prevalent in Pakistan—

Pakistan has successfully managed to regulate polygamy by imposing stringent restrictions. In 2017, a court in Lahore ruled that contracting a second marriage without the consent of the existing wife constitutes a “breach of law.” The Lahore court sentenced the accused to six months of imprisonment and imposed a fine of 200,000 Pakistani Rupees.

In Pakistan, polygamy is generally prohibited; however, if a second marriage becomes necessary under exceptional circumstances, a written application must be submitted to the Arbitration Council. Prior consent from the existing wife/wives must be obtained for this application. The Arbitration Council records its decision in writing on whether to grant the application, and this decision is considered final. However, if a husband contracts a marriage without the permission of the Arbitration Council, he is obligated to immediately pay the full amount of dower (mahr) to his current wife/wives, and he may also be penalized based on a formal complaint.

Such reforms in Muslim personal law—namely enforcing monogamy by placing strict conditions on polygamy—have been implemented not only in Pakistan but also in several other countries, including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.

Live-in relationship or living together

No Uniform Civil Code has been implemented at the national level in India yet. However, in states that have passed the Uniform Civil Code—namely Uttarakhand, Gujarat, and Assam—live-in relationships have been granted legal validity, and registration has been made mandatory, with penal provisions for non-compliance. Additionally, there are provisions stating that married individuals, or anyone currently in a live-in relationship, cannot register a new live-in relationship. It can be presumed that similar provisions are likely to be introduced in West Bengal as well.

Reasons for Objection:

Although registering live-in relationships is mandatory under the Uniform Civil Code, it does not speak of prohibiting adultery.

In 2018, the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, extramarital affairs or adultery are no longer criminal offenses in India. This means the police cannot arrest anyone, nor can fines or prison sentences be imposed for this reason.

According to the Supreme Court, Article 21 of the Constitution grants every citizen of India the right to life and personal liberty. Which person two consenting adults choose to be with is strictly their personal decision.

By imposing strict regulations on live-in relationships, the Uniform Civil Code is indirectly encouraging adultery.

Cousin marriage (Consanguineous marriage / Marriage among relatives)

In Islam, marriage between cousins—such as paternal or maternal cousins—is valid and has been practiced from the very beginning, though marrying two sisters simultaneously is forbidden. In the states where the Uniform Civil Code has been passed, cousin marriage has been banned. It is likely that cousin marriage will be banned in West Bengal as well.

Although cousin marriage is strictly prohibited in North India under the Hindu Marriage Act, it is legally valid in many parts of South India. For instance, among Hindus in Tamil Nadu, marriage between a maternal uncle and his niece is valid and holds great cultural significance. Where practices like Draupadi marriage (polyandry) have been retained as long-standing traditions and uncle-niece marriages remain unquestioned, banning cousin marriages among Muslims is nothing short of political hypocrisy.

There was a time when cousin marriages were encouraged in Muslim society. This was not driven by religious reasons. At that time, agricultural land was the primary source of rural income. Cousin marriages were encouraged primarily to prevent the transfer or division of family land. Today, those circumstances no longer exist, and public interest in cousin marriages has naturally declined.

There is a common perception among Bengali Hindus that Muslims mostly engage in cousin marriages, leading to a higher incidence of genetic disorders among them. However, there is no verified data to support this claim; it is largely a product of “WhatsApp University.” The notion that genetic disorders are higher among Muslims because they practice cousin marriage is entirely false, as substantiated by Government of India data.

History and statistics regarding genetic disorders based on community, caste, and tribe in India are readily available. It has no correlation with Islam or cousin marriages among Muslims. For instance:

a) Beta-Thalassemia

  • Sindhi, Lohana, and Bhanushali Communities of Kutch: The carrier rate for thalassemia is highest among them, ranging from approximately 8% to 15%.
  • Punjabi and Khatri Communities: The carrier rate among them ranges from roughly 4% to 6.5%.
  • Muslim and Kayastha Communities of West Bengal: Certain regional studies indicate that in specific rural Muslim pockets and among certain upper-caste Hindus in West Bengal, this carrier rate reaches 4% to 8%.

b) Sickle Cell Anemia

This is primarily prevalent among India’s Scheduled Tribes (ST) and certain backward communities.

  • Tribal Belt: Among tribal populations in Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Odisha, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, and Maharashtra, the carrier rate for the sickle cell gene can range from 10% to 40%.
  • Central Government Data: According to Central Government data, 1 out of every 8 to 10 tribal children in India is born as a carrier of sickle cell anemia.

Small Community-Based Disorders (Founder Effect)

  • Parsi Community: G6PD Deficiency—This enzyme deficiency is observed in approximately 12% to 15% of males within this community, causing red blood cells to break down upon consuming certain medications. Additionally, they have a higher genetic predisposition to breast and prostate cancers.
  • Ashkenazi Jews: Tay-Sachs Disease—A fatal neurological disorder linked to the genetic traits of this community.
  • Agarwal and Vaishya Communities: Pseudocholinesterase Deficiency—When individuals from these communities are administered general anesthesia (such as suxamethonium) during surgery, their bodies cannot easily metabolize it, which can prove fatal.
  • Komati or Arya Vaishya Communities: A similarly dangerous sensitivity to anesthesia has been statistically observed at a significantly higher rate among them as well.
  • Jat and Gurjar Communities: Among these groups in northwestern India (Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan), a genetic mutation causing cardiovascular risk (MYBPC3 deletion) is found at a higher rate than the national average, which can lead to sudden cardiac arrest at a young age.

From the above data, it is evident that the prevalence of genetic disorders in India is highest among tribal populations and Hindu Scheduled Castes. Yet, citing long-standing traditions and customs, cousin marriages among them have been kept outside the purview of the Uniform Civil Code.

It is also not as if cousin marriages never occur among Bengali Hindus simply because they are legally prohibited. The private tutor of this article’s author during his early years (Class 5 to Class 9) was the late Durga Bhattacharya, a devout Bengali Hindu Brahmin of aristocratic lineage. He had married his maternal cousin; for that offense, he and his wife (his maternal cousin) were disowned and disinherited from family property.

Furthermore, the author of this report knew another devout Hindu Brahmin who spent his entire life in a live-in relationship with his paternal cousin, yet could not marry her due to legal constraints.

Therefore, when the law cannot prevent two consenting adult cousins from freely associating or cohabiting, there is no need—nor is it appropriate—to forcibly ban cousin marriage under the Uniform Civil Code.

Divorce

There is a distorted perception among Hindus in India that Muslim men issue divorces at will whenever they desire, leading to a divorce rate among Muslims that is many times higher than that among Hindus.

However, Government of India statistics do not support this claim. According to the 2011 Census, the total divorced population in India was 1,362,316—representing 0.11% of the total population. Meanwhile, the number of individuals who were not legally divorced but living separately under court orders (separated) totaled 3,535,202—representing 0.29% of the total population. Combined, the total percentage of divorced and separated individuals stood at (0.11% + 0.29% =) 0.40%.

  • Hindu Community: The total number of divorced Hindus was 962,810 (0.10% of the total Hindu population), while the number of separated Hindus living apart per court orders was 2,870,685 (0.30% of the total Hindu population). Thus, the combined total for divorced and separated Hindus was (0.10% + 0.30% =) 0.40%.
  • Muslim Community: The total number of divorced Muslims was 269,609 (0.16% of the total Muslim population), while the number of separated Muslims living apart per court orders was 384,738 (0.22% of the total Muslim population). The combined total for divorced and separated Muslims was (0.16% + 0.22% =) 0.38%.

This combined figure of 0.38% among Muslims is lower than both the Hindu rate and the national average.

Therefore, the narrative that Muslim men make women’s lives miserable by issuing triple talaq whenever they wish is nothing more than false propaganda against Muslims. The Government of India’s own census data clearly corroborates this fact.

Instant triple talaq (Talaq-e-Biddat) has already been banned in India (which was prohibited long ago in almost all Muslim-majority countries, including Bangladesh and Pakistan). Even though instant triple talaq is banned, Talaq-e-Ahsan and Talaq-e-Hasan remain in practice.

Summary of Talaq-e-Ahsan:

  • The husband or his designated representative makes a single, clear declaration of divorce.
  • This declaration must take place during the wife’s state of purity (Tuhr—the period between menstrual cycles). If declared during menstruation, the talaq is invalid.
  • If the husband genuinely intends to divorce his wife, he must wait for three months following the declaration.
  • This three-month period is known as Iddah. During Iddah, the wife has the right to reside in the husband’s home and cannot be forcibly evicted. The husband must abstain from marital relations during this period. If the wife is pregnant, the Iddah period extends until the birth of the child.
  • During Iddah, the husband is expected to reconsider his decision and consult with family members. If he chooses, he may reconcile with his wife within this timeframe. Alternatively, if marital relations resume during Iddah, the divorce becomes nullified. The wife remains fully entitled to maintenance from her husband throughout the Iddah period.
  • If the husband does not reconcile or resume marital relations during the Iddah period, the Talaq-e-Ahsan process automatically concludes and takes effect upon completion of Iddah. The declaration of divorce or its revocation may be communicated orally or in writing; however, under Shia law, written divorce is not accepted, and the presence of at least two competent witnesses is mandatory.
  • Should the divorced couple decide to remarry each other in the future, they are entirely free to do so without any impediment. Consequently, Talaq-e-Ahsan is considered the most preferred and proper form of divorce.

If a Uniform Civil Code is implemented, all such personal law divorce mechanisms will be completely abolished, and divorce will be obtainable exclusively through the judicial court system.

Nikah Halala (Intermediate Marriage)

The rule of Nikah Halala regulates the habit of Muslim men and women repeatedly marrying and divorcing the same person.This is because marriage does not merely establish a relationship between a man and a woman;it also creates kinship ties between two families and lineages. In Islam, maintaining family and kinship ties is given immense importance. If repeated marriages and divorces continue to occur between the same man and woman, it creates confusion and instability among relatives. Therefore, if a man and a woman marry and divorce each other three consecutive times, they cannot marry each other a fourth time. If they do so, such a marriage is considered haram (forbidden). However, before marrying for the fourth time, if the woman marries another man, and that marriage also ends in divorce or she becomes a widow, only then can the original couple start a new married life together as if for the first time—this marriage is then considered valid or halal. This process is known as Nikah Halala.

If a Uniform Civil Code is implemented, the rule of Nikah Halala will be abolished. In other words, a man and a woman will then be able to marry and divorce each other as many times as they wish, without having to be accountable to anyone.

Grounds for Objection

Many people are unaware that, just like Muslim men, Muslim women can also initiate a divorce on valid grounds—this is known as Khula. In the past, there was a time when the incidence of Khula in Muslim society exceeded that of Talaq.

If a Uniform Civil Code is implemented, just as the right of Muslim men to give talaq will be taken away, so too will the right of Muslim women to seek Khula. Under all circumstances, divorce will be executed solely through court orders.

Judicial delay is the primary reason for objection. Nearly 1.14 million divorce-related cases are currently pending in Indian courts. While Muslim men and women can resolve divorce-related issues within just a few months through Talaq-e-Ahsan and begin a new married life, obtaining a divorce through the courts can take several years for both men and women.

Muslim women will suffer the most as a result. If a Muslim woman files for divorce in court, she cannot remarry, claim damages, or demand maintenance until the court delivers its verdict. She may be forced to continue living in the home of the very husband against whom she filed for divorce. We can barely imagine the immense difficulties and mental agony the woman might have to endure during this period.

Therefore, those who speak of granting freedom to Muslim women by implementing a Uniform Civil Code should reflect on what they are actually about to do.

Judicial delays in divorce matters have already emerged as a major life obstacle in non-Muslim society. In such cases, if a non-Muslim man or woman finds a new life partner, they live together in a live-in relationship, and the court raises no objection to it. Furthermore, their current live-in relationship often aids in obtaining a divorce from the previous spouse.

However, in Islam, cohabitation of a man and a woman without marriage is strictly forbidden. Thus, until the court grants permission for divorce, they may have to wait for years—perhaps even for the rest of their lives—to start a new married life. This is nothing short of a form of cruelty toward human life.

The government should make marriage easier by banning extramarital relationships, i.e., adultery. To make marriage easier, divorce must also be made accessible and hassle-free.

By making divorce a lengthy legal process through the courts, the Uniform Civil Code discourages marriage itself and indirectly encourages people to build extramarital relationships. In this regard, there are substantial grounds for objection to the Uniform Civil Code.

Succession

Primary Beneficiaries (Ashab al-Fara’id / Legal Heirs): In Islam, the rules governing the distribution of property among heirs are extremely precise and mathematically structured, based directly on Quranic mandates. Under Sharia law, the rights of the deceased person’s son, daughter, wife or husband, father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather, grandchild, and other family members are protected in specific proportional shares.

For example, currently, if a Muslim man passes away, his wife receives a 1/8 share (or 1/4 if the deceased is female and survived by her husband), the father receives a 1/6 share, the mother receives a 1/6 share, and the remaining property is distributed among the sons and daughters in a 2:1 ratio. If the deceased leaves behind no sons and only one daughter, the daughter receives a 1/2 share; if there are multiple daughters, they collectively receive a 2/3 share, and the remainder is distributed among the deceased’s brothers.

However, under the Uniform Civil Code, if a person dies intestate (without leaving a will), their entire estate will be divided equally among only four parties: the surviving spouse, children (one or more), mother, and father. If a child of the deceased passed away prior to the deceased’s death, that child’s offspring (the grandchildren) will inherit their deceased parent’s allocated share.

Adoption: Unlike Hinduism, Islam has no provision for legally adopting a child. However, a Muslim individual is entirely free to foster and raise another person’s child with care and affection without any legal prohibition. Nevertheless, this child never acquires the legal status of an equal heir alongside biological children. Furthermore, the child must be informed of their true parental identity, and in Muslim society, their lineage remains tied to their biological parents. The person who raises the child is considered solely as their guardian.

Under the Uniform Civil Code, a Muslim individual, like a Hindu, will be legally permitted to adopt a child, and this adopted child will be recognized as a legitimate legal heir.

Legal Will / Testament

Under Islamic Sharia law, a person can bequeath through a will (Wasiyyat) only up to one-third (1/3) of their total property according to their own discretion, while the remaining two-thirds must strictly be reserved for the legal heirs.

Under the Uniform Civil Code, an individual is granted 100% testamentary freedom over their self-acquired property. In other words, if a person wishes, they can bequeath their entire property to a trust, a specific child, or anyone else of their choosing.

Grounds for Objection

The inheritance provisions under the Uniform Civil Code have been drafted primarily keeping urban middle-class and affluent populations in mind, completely overlooking the realities of marginalized, low-income communities.

For Example:

Suppose an urban middle-class individual passes away, leaving behind ₹50 lakh. The deceased is survived by a wife, a son, a daughter, a father, and a mother. Under the Uniform Civil Code, all five legal heirs will receive an equal share of ₹10 lakh each, and the value of the residential property will likewise be divided equally among them. In this scenario, significant complications are unlikely to arise.

Now consider a marginalized rural farmer or daily-wage laborer who passes away, leaving behind only a small residential dwelling and a single plot of land barely sufficient to sustain a household. He leaves behind his wife, a minor son, and a married daughter, while his surviving parents live separately with his other siblings. If his remaining assets are divided equally among all five heirs, with each taking their individual share, his widowed wife and minor son would effectively be left destitute on the streets, giving rise to a complex socio-economic crisis. Under the inheritance framework prescribed by Islamic Sharia law, the likelihood of such socio-economic distress is significantly lower due to the structural distribution of shares.

Critics of Sharia law often highlight the equal inheritance rights for sons and daughters provided under the Uniform Civil Code. However, under Sharia law, a woman does not merely inherit from her father; she also receives Mahr (dower) from her husband—which is deliberately fixed as high as feasible at the time of marriage—and holds an independent claim to her husband’s estate. Consequently, Sharia law cannot be characterized as discriminatory; rather, it represents a balanced system.

Furthermore, the Uniform Civil Code grants an individual 100% testamentary freedom over their property. If a person chooses to bequeath their entire estate exclusively to their son before passing away, no legal remedy remains available to the omitted heirs. In India’s patriarchal society, this framework leaves female children fully vulnerable to disinheritance.

Conversely, because Sharia law limits testamentary freedom to a maximum of one-third (1/3) of the total estate, an individual cannot fully disinherit a daughter or any primary legal heir, even if they intend to do so.

Conclusion

Even though polygamy is prohibited under the Hindu Marriage Act in India, it could not be eradicated among Hindu men; in fact, it has gained social acceptance in many places.

Conversely, in Muslim-majority countries like Pakistan and Morocco—where over 95% of the population is Muslim—imposing strict regulatory conditions within the framework of Islamic Sharia law has successfully controlled polygamy.

Despite this, ignoring the recommendations of the 21st Law Commission, the Uniform Civil Codes enacted by various states have banned polygamy for all men regardless of whether they are Hindu or Muslim, and imposed stringent restrictions on live-in relationships. Yet, no measures have been taken to curb adultery, nor has prostitution been banned.

By stripping Muslim women of their right to Khula, they have been handed a life of enduring agony.

Meanwhile, superstitious practices within the Hindu community (such as the practice of polyandry in parts of North India) have been allowed to persist under the guise of ancient tradition.

Although advocates speak of “One Nation, One Law” and championing women’s social status, India’s vast tribal population—among whom polygamy and genetic disorders are most prevalent—has been kept completely outside the purview of the Uniform Civil Code.

Furthermore, while claiming to offer equal inheritance rights to all heirs regardless of gender, granting 100% testamentary freedom creates an opportunistic loophole to strip women of their inheritance within a patriarchal society.

A thorough review of the Uniform Civil Codes enacted across the three states so far reveals that logic, empirical data, and grounded realities received minimal consideration during the drafting of these provisions. Rather than reflecting healthy democratic principles, this legislation stands as a clear manifestation of majoritarian arrogance.

বাংলা এবং বাঙালির জন্য লড়াইকে এগিয়ে নিয়ে যেতে আমাদের সাহায্য করুন।
আমরা কোনো কোটিপতি বা বড় কোনো কোম্পানি নই – আমাদের পাঠকরাই আমাদের সমর্থন করেন। আমাদের এই গুরুত্বপূর্ণ এবং সাহসী প্রচেষ্টার জন্য অনুদান দিয়ে আমাদের পাশে থাকুন।
We are not billionaires or big companies – our readers support us. Support us by donating to this important and courageous effort.

logo
DONATE NOW
Powered By Cashfree logo