As UCC debate resurfaces in poll-bound states, recalling what Ambedkar said in Constituent Assembly

Shah’s declaration has brought this back in public discourse ahead of a high-stakes Assembly election. Today, on the 135th birth anniversary of B R Ambedkar, known as the “architect of India’s Constitution”, it is important to recall what he said on the UCC.

Here’s what to know about the current political confrontation and the historical context.

BJP, Opposition face off

Shah’s statement came on the back of a speech by Prime Minister Narendra Modi earlier this month. Addressing party workers on the occasion of BJP’s foundation day (April 6) in New Delhi, Modi underlined the party’s “mission” for a UCC. He said that a “serious discussion” on these issues was under way in the country and that “constructive progress” had been made in that direction.

A day after Shah’s remarks, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee said that the BJP, through the UCC, wanted to impose its diktat on the people and restrict people from practising their faith.

In a rally in Paschim Medinipur district, the Trinamool Congress chief said that the BJP manifesto was “filled with lies”. “Implementing UCC means you will lose the right to practise your religion and faith. It will take away your culture, tradition and education. UCC means destruction of diversity. They want to make everything homogeneous,” she said.

Calling it “dangerous”, she said that her party will oppose the UCC.

West Bengal is not the only state where the BJP has promised to bring in a UCC. In Assam, which recently saw voting for the Assembly election on April 9, Shah said that upon its return to power, the incumbent BJP dispensation would implement it soon as part of its commitment to prohibit polygamy.

The opposition Congress, which has criticised the BJP for using the UCC as a “political instrument to keep the country in permanent polarisation” in the past, has questioned the latest push. Responding to Shah’s promise, senior Congress leader Salman Khurshid asked why the issue is being discussed if there is no existing ban, and raised concerns over the political narrative surrounding the UCC.

Meanwhile, in a case concerning inheritance laws, the Supreme Court weighed in on the subject last month, saying that a UCC was the “most effective answer” to usher in equality rather than the court striking down allegedly discriminatory personal law provisions and causing ambiguities.

Ideological pillar

Since its inception in 1980, the BJP has consistently endorsed the demand for a UCC. In fact, it forms one of the party’s three ideological mainstays, the other two being the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya and the abrogation of Article 370. Of the three, only the UCC remains unaccomplished.

So far, the BJP seems to have taken the state route towards implementation instead of trying to do so on a pan-India level. Among states where it has a government, the party implemented a UCC in Uttarakhand (the first state to do so since Independence) in January 2025, and also passed a UCC Bill in the Gujarat Assembly last month. Other states where the party has expressed plans to bring in the legislation are Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.

What Ambedkar said

On November 23, 1948, the Constituent Assembly witnessed a debate over the draft Article 35, which said: “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” This Article was to be included in the section titled “Directive Principles of State Policy”, which comprised broad ideas that the State ought to incorporate in policymaking but was not legally bound to abide by.

When it was tabled and put to vote, several members suggested amendments and raised concerns about its reception by religious communities, especially in terms of societal harmony.

B R Ambedkar, chairman of the drafting committee, presenting the final draft of the Indian Constitution to Constituent Assembly president Rajendra Prasad on November 25, 1949. (Wikimedia Commons)

Ambedkar, however, defended the idea. While he said that he would not discuss the pros and cons of having a UCC, he did express surprise over the question “whether it was possible and desirable to have a uniform Code of laws for a country so vast” as India.

He said: “…we have in this country a uniform code of laws covering almost every aspect of human relationship. We have a uniform and complete criminal Code operating throughout the country, which is contained in the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code.”

According to Ambedkar, marriage and succession were “the only province the Civil Law has not been able to invade so far”, and that “it is the intention of those who desire to have Article 35 as part of the Constitution to bring about that change”. He even highlighted instances where personal laws of one community had applied uniformly to other communities at some point of time.

Conciliatory, not absolutist

Ambedkar, however, was not absolutist and preferred a conciliatory approach. To allay fears that the UCC would be imposed on everyone when the Constitution came into force, he pointed out that it was a Directive Principle and not a statute. He believed that it could be initially applied voluntarily before being worded as law.

“It is perfectly possible that the future parliament may make a provision by way of making a beginning that the Code shall apply only to those who make a declaration that they are prepared to be bound by it, so that in the initial stage the application of the Code may be purely voluntary,” he said.

In another Constituent Assembly discussion on December 2, 1949, Ambedkar responded to concerns over whether the UCC’s enactment would interfere with the freedom to practise religion. While acknowledging that religion in India covered “every aspect of life, from birth to death”, he argued that the realms of religion and civil/social law must be clearly demarcated.

“I personally do not understand why religion should be given this vast, expansive jurisdiction so as to cover the whole of life and to prevent the legislature from encroaching upon that field. After all, what are we having this liberty for? We are having this liberty in order to reform our social system, which is so full of inequities, so full of inequalities, discriminations and other things… It is, therefore, quite impossible for anybody to conceive that the personal law shall be excluded from the jurisdiction of the State,” he added.

Again, he sought to alleviate the concerns of minority communities.

“Having said that, I should also like to point out that all that the State is claiming in this matter is a power to legislate… Therefore, no one need be apprehensive of the fact that if the State has the power, the State will immediately proceed to execute or enforce that power in a manner that may be found to be objectionable by the Muslims or by the Christians or by any other community in India.” According to him, this was because the government’s exercise of powers “must reconcile to the sentiments of different communities”.

When the draft Article 35 was put to vote, the amendments were rejected. As of today, the UCC remains a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 44.