Justice Chavan Quits Maharashtra's UCC Panel: How the Drafting Process Became the Issue

A Uniform Code That Applies in Only One State **Article

44 directs that "the State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India**." Two parts of that sentence are now in tension. "The State" in Part IV includes state governments, so Maharashtra is entitled to act.

But the goal is uniformity across the whole country and a Maharashtra code can only apply within Maharashtra. The text allows states to act but aims at a national result. That gap and the way Maharashtra's committee is handling it, is what Justice Chavan's resignation brings into view.

The Constitutional Route States Are Using

Personal law falls under Entry 5 of the Concurrent List, which covers marriage, divorce and succession, so both Parliament and state legislatures can legislate on it. Where a state law conflicts with a central law, Article 254(2) allows the state law to prevail in that state if it receives Presidential assent.

Uttarakhand used this route: its Bill was passed in February 2024, received assent in March 2024 and came into force on 27 January 2025. The route is valid. But its result is state-by-state variation: each state's code is uniform inside its own borders and different from the next state's.

Even Uttarakhand's code exempts Scheduled Tribes, so it is not fully uniform within the state either.

Why the Process Matters Here

Most laws draw legitimacy from the legislature that passes them. A UCC, which will change the personal law of every religious community in the state, also depends on how it was prepared. Two details of Justice Chavan's resignation matter:

• The questionnaire: He wanted more open-ended, subjective questions so people could explain their views. The committee chose a mix of objective and subjective questions in a list of about three dozen. On matters of faith, family and inheritance, close-ended answers capture opinions without the reasons behind them.
• The non-member: Shatrughna Singh attended the 19 September meeting and raised changes to the consultation website, although he was not one of the seven members. Justice Chavan says members were not told of his role. Singh was formally appointed two days after the resignation. Neither issue is illegal. Both weaken trust. A committee with no minority-community member, as the SP's Rais Shaikh points out, drafting a law that will change minority personal laws, needs a consultation process that is clearly open and thorough. When one of its judicial members leaves over that process, critics who call the exercise majoritarian gain an argument.

Two Questions for One Code

The federal question: Did the Constituent Assembly intend 28 different "uniform" codes? The Congress has raised this and it is a fair reading of the words "throughout the territory of India". The democratic question: If the consultation is narrow, will the law be accepted by the communities it changes?

For comparison, the 21st Law Commission (2018) consulted widely and concluded that a UCC was "neither necessary nor desirable at this stage". Whatever one thinks of that conclusion, it came from an extensive process.

For the exam: Article 44 is usually taught as a debate about whether India should have a UCC. The Maharashtra episode adds two further questions: who makes the code and how it is made. The first is a federal question and the second is about democratic legitimacy.