One nation, many codes: The contradiction inside Amit Shah’s 2029 UCC promise

Union Home Minister Amit Shah has placed a date and a number against one of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) longest-standing political commitments. Before the 2029 Lok Sabha election, he said in Mumbai on September 13, all 21 states governed by the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) would implement a Uniform Civil Code (UCC).

The statement turns an abstract constitutional debate into a deadline-driven legislative programme. It also raises a question that has received less attention than the familiar arguments over religion and personal law: can 21 laws enacted by 21 state legislatures collectively produce anything that can reasonably be called a uniform code?

The Constitution gives the states considerable room to legislate on family law. Yet the same federal route allows each state to choose its own provisions, exemptions and enforcement system. India could consequently move towards greater uniformity within individual states while creating new differences between them.

That contradiction lies at the heart of Shah’s 2029 promise.

What will count as implementation?

Shah said that some states had already introduced UCCs and expressed confidence that all 21 NDA-governed states would enforce them before the next general election. Uttarakhand brought its code into force on January 27, 2025. The legislatures of Gujarat, Assam and Madhya Pradesh have subsequently passed UCC Bills.

Also read: No choice, no voice: Indian Muslims driven to both accept UCC and lose franchise

Passage through an Assembly must be distinguished from presidential assent, notification of rules and actual enforcement, which have to be verified separately for each state. A government may announce a committee, publish its report, introduce a Bill, secure its passage, obtain assent, frame detailed rules and finally commence the law. Each represents a different stage, and only the last stage changes the law governing citizens.

Article 44 of the Constitution says that the State shall endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for citizens throughout India. It forms part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, which guide governments in making laws.

Uttarakhand’s experience reveals the administrative scale of the exercise. Its code goes well beyond replacing religion-specific rules. It creates registration systems for marriages and divorces, lays down rules governing succession and requires live-in relationships to be registered. Registrars, digital platforms, appeal mechanisms and procedures for verifying applications are needed to make these provisions work.

If Shah’s deadline refers to actual implementation, the states will require more than legislative majorities. They must settle the contents of their codes, complete the assent process wherever necessary, frame rules, train officials and create systems capable of handling sensitive information about marriages, divorces, inheritance and personal relationships.

Why states can make these laws

Article 44 of the Constitution says that the State shall endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for citizens throughout India. It forms part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, which guide governments in making laws.

Legislative authority over these subjects is shared. Entry 5 of the Concurrent List covers marriage and divorce, infants and minors, adoption, wills, inheritance, succession and joint-family matters. Parliament and state legislatures can therefore enact laws in these fields.

Also read: UCC live-in registration | ‘State barging into bedrooms,’ says young India

A complication arises when provisions of a state law conflict with a parliamentary law governing the same Concurrent List subject. Article 254 ordinarily gives the central law precedence. A conflicting state law can operate within that state after receiving presidential assent, although Parliament retains the power to override it subsequently.

Presidential assent may therefore become important where provisions of a state code conflict with parliamentary laws such as the Hindu Marriage Act, the Special Marriage Act, the Indian Succession Act or the Guardians and Wards Act.

Reports accompanying Shah’s announcement said tribal communities would remain outside the UCC to protect their customs, traditions and identity.

This constitutional arrangement enables states to experiment with family law reform. It also permits each legislature to make different choices. A state may reproduce Uttarakhand’s model, change selected provisions or devise a separate framework. Every variation adds another layer to the question of what “uniform” means.

Uniform within one state, different across India

Suppose one state requires partners in a live-in relationship to register it, while a neighbouring state leaves such relationships outside its registration system. A couple moving across the border could face different legal obligations merely because their residence has changed.

Also read: Why does a judge think 23 death sentences make him brave?

Succession could generate harder questions. A person may live in one state, own property in two others and belong to a community exempted by one state’s code but covered by another. Courts would then have to determine which law governs the estate.

Similar conflicts could arise over prohibited relationships, recognition of customs, maintenance, inheritance and the legal effect of wills. Even the basis on which a state applies its law matters. One code may follow people classified as residents, another may use domicile, and a third may concentrate on marriages or relationships formed within its territory.

The Uttarakhand rules extend across the state and also apply to Uttarakhand residents living outside it. Provisions concerning marriage, divorce and live-in relationships can apply when one partner is a foreign national and the other is an Uttarakhand resident.

If another state adopts a primarily territorial approach, a person could potentially encounter competing requirements. Residence, domicile and recognition of certificates issued elsewhere would then become important in everyday disputes.

Common titles for the state laws cannot resolve such conflicts. The states would need compatible definitions and clear rules explaining how marriages, divorces, relationships and succession rights created under another state’s law will be recognised.

The tribal exemption changes the equation

Reports accompanying Shah’s announcement said tribal communities would remain outside the UCC to protect their customs, traditions and identity. Uttarakhand’s code excludes members of Scheduled Tribes (STs) as well as persons and groups whose customary rights are protected under Part XXI of the Constitution.

The basis for such protection is substantial. Tribal customs concerning marriage, inheritance, family organisation and community property may differ from both religious personal laws and the family structures assumed by a general civil code. The Constitution also gives particular protection to customary laws in parts of the Northeast.

The BJP presents the UCC as an instrument of gender justice, particularly for women affected by unequal rules governing marriage, divorce and inheritance.

Article 371A protects Naga customary law and procedure in Nagaland, while Article 371G provides comparable protection in Mizoram. The Sixth Schedule gives autonomous institutions law-making powers over subjects including inheritance, marriage and social customs in designated tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.

An exemption can preserve these constitutional commitments to tribal autonomy. It also means that the reach of a UCC will vary considerably between states. Where the Scheduled Tribe population is relatively small, the exemption may affect a limited share of residents. In several northeastern states, it could leave a substantial part of the population governed by customary law.

Several practical questions will require answers. Does an exemption follow a tribal person who moves outside a protected area or to another state? Which law governs a marriage between an exempt person and someone covered by the code? Does the exemption extend to property situated beyond the state?

If the states answer these questions differently, the exemptions will become another source of legal variation.

Equality depends on the contents of the code

The BJP presents the UCC as an instrument of gender justice, particularly for women affected by unequal rules governing marriage, divorce and inheritance. Equal inheritance rights and protection against discriminatory marital practices can address genuine disadvantages. Yet the equality claim must be tested provision by provision.

A code may provide equal succession rights to daughters and sons and require monogamy, while also imposing intrusive reporting duties on adults in consensual relationships. Uttarakhand’s compulsory registration of live-in relationships has faced constitutional challenges based on privacy and personal autonomy.

Registration can establish proof of a relationship and assist a woman seeking maintenance or protection. Its design determines whether it offers that security while safeguarding privacy. The information collected, officials’ authority to conduct inquiries, access to registration records and communication with parents or the police are therefore important parts of the law.

Gender justice must also be assessed through matrimonial property rights, maintenance after divorce, guardianship and the economic position of women when a marriage ends. Replacing several personal laws with one statute creates formal uniformity. The rights contained in the statute determine whether substantive equality advances.

A political deadline with a moving target

The figure of 21 states reflects the present political map, which may change through state elections and coalition realignments before 2029. A state could leave the NDA after beginning the legislative process, while another could come under an NDA government closer to the deadline.

The commitment also covers governments led by NDA partners as well as those led directly by the BJP. Coalition partners may support reform in some areas while seeking broader protection for regional and customary practices in others. A nationally coordinated timetable will therefore encounter state-specific political negotiations.

The deadline may encourage governments to act quickly, but family law governs intimate decisions with consequences that can continue for generations. Consultation with women’s organisations, tribal institutions, religious communities, family-law practitioners and implementing officials can expose problems involving mixed marriages, migration, inheritance across state borders and vulnerable partners before those problems become litigation.

The real test of uniformity

India’s constitutional structure allows states to become laboratories for family law reform. Experience in one state can reveal whether a provision protects women, burdens couples, creates administrative delays or generates unforeseen disputes. Other states can then improve upon that model.

Shah’s deadline, however, emphasises the number of states completing the process. Counting enacted laws will provide only part of the answer. A meaningful assessment must examine whether those laws confer comparable rights, contain workable rules for inter-state recognition and respect constitutional protections for tribal communities.

The emerging system could contain central family laws, several state UCCs, tribal customary laws and different exemptions within each code. People who move, marry or own property across state borders may consequently encounter a more complicated legal landscape than the promise of “one nation, one law” suggests.

The 2029 commitment can accelerate the reform of discriminatory personal laws. Its credibility will ultimately depend on the quality and compatibility of the resulting codes, rather than the speed with which 21 Assemblies pass legislation bearing the same title.