Article 44 and Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)

Article 44 Constitutional Vision

The inclusion of article 44 in the Indian constitution was a deliberate decision made by the drafters to encourage the harmonization of personal laws across different religions. Under this, the state will make an effort to provide the people of India with a uniform civil code that applies to the entire nation. The inclusion of the phrase “shall endeavour” in the statement signifies that while the goal of implementing a uniform civil code (UCC) was desirable, it was not to be enforced immediately but was intended to be a long-term legislative objective.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was the greatest advocate for establishing a UCC within the Constituent Assembly Debates.[1] According to him, there should be a uniform civil code to put an end to gender discrimination in personal laws, to make all citizens equal in front of the law, and to adhere to a secular approach of law. Resistance from religious minority members meant the inclusion of Article 44 within the DPSP instead of in the Fundamental Rights because it was a directive provision.

The rationale[2] Article 44 was to create legal consistency in the fields of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and succession that previously fell under diverse religious practices. The Constitution, in choosing a UCC, wanted to make sure that the laws that would govern civil relations should be grounded on principles of justice and equality rather than religious beliefs.

DPSP and Fundamental Rights

One of the core constitutional issues of Article 44 is its conformity with Fundamental Rights, i.e., freedom of religion under Articles 25-28. DPSPs are non-justiciable in the context that they cannot be enforced by courts as such.[3] Fundamental Rights, however, can be enforced, and any law encroaching upon them can be converted into a case to be presented before a court of law. Therefore, there have been various interpretations by the courts regarding whether Article 44 takes precedence over personal laws guaranteed under Article 25.

The Supreme Court has already resolved the conflict between personal laws and constitutional morality through a series of significant judgments. Despite acknowledging the impossibility of DPSP prevailing over fundamental rights, the court has persisted in emphasizing the necessity of harmonizing personal laws to uphold the constitutional ideology. The court has consistently maintained that religious freedom cannot be used as a justification for gender inequality or the denial of rights to citizens, particularly women.

The judiciary has taken on an interpretative role to strike a balance between the objectives of Article 44 and the right to religious freedom. In specific situations, courts have prioritized the “principles of secularism and gender justice over religious practices when they clash with the right to equality as guaranteed by Article 14.”[4] However, as DPSPs are non-binding, the judiciary has not proceeded to the extent of directing the legislature to enact UCC.

Judicial Interpretations of Article 44

The High Courts and the Supreme Court have been instrumental in shaping the UCC debate by progressive interpretations of Article 44. Some of the landmark judgments that have consolidated the case for a UCC are. “In Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985)[5], one of the strongest UCC judgments, considered the Muslim woman’s right to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).[6] The Supreme Court held that personal laws cannot override a woman’s right to maintenance and noted that a UCC would promote gender justice and legal uniformity. The case rekindled the national debate on UCC and resulted in the enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which watered down the judgment by limiting maintenance rights under Muslim personal law.”

In another milestone judgment of “Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995)[7], the Supreme Court considered the issue of bigamous marriage in the disguise of religious conversion. It ruled that a Hindu man cannot convert to Islam only to enter into a second marriage without dissolving the first one, as it is against the spirit of justice and uniformity in personal laws”. The decision stressed the imposition of a common civil code to avoid legal loopholes that were employed for religion-oriented legal exploitation. Further, in John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003)[8], the court examined the discriminatory provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, restricting Christian charitable gifts. The Supreme Court held the provisions to violate Article 14 and reiterated the necessity of uniform civil laws that are not discriminatory based on religion.

In so doing, the judiciary has always prized the desirability of a UCC, especially where personal laws conflict with fundamental rights. But it has also argued that the implementation of a UCC is a legislative matter and has to be politically and socially acceptable.

[1] “Why Ambedkar Supported Uniform Civil Code, The Hindu Business Line, 15 April 2021, available at: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/why-ambedkar-supported-uniform-civil-code/article34320070.ece (last visited 30 March 2025).”

[2] “Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625.

[3] India Const. art 37.

[4] India Const. art 14.”

[5]Supra note, 13.

[6]Government of India(1973), The Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, § 125.

[7]Supra note, 14.

[8]John Vallamattom v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611.