‘Permanent Polarisation’: Congress Targets UCC Push After Justice R.C. Chavan Quits Maharashtra Panel
By: Javid Amin | 22 September 2026
New Delhi: India’s long-running debate over the Uniform Civil Code has entered another politically charged phase after retired Bombay High Court judge Justice R.C. Chavan resigned from Maharashtra’s UCC committee, objecting to the way the panel proposed to gather public feedback on sensitive social questions.
The resignation has given fresh momentum to a larger argument that has been building around the proposed Uniform Civil Code: how should India move toward common civil laws while dealing with a country marked by religious, cultural and customary diversity?
Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh used the development to question not only the functioning of Maharashtra’s committee but also the broader strategy of pursuing UCCs through individual States.
In a statement on September 23, Ramesh accused the Narendra Modi government of using the UCC as a political instrument to “divide, disrupt and divert” public attention. He later described what he called the UCC “bulldozer” as an effort to create “permanent polarisation.” Those are Congress’s political allegations, not independently established findings.
The immediate controversy, however, is more specific.
Justice Chavan’s resignation was rooted in his objections to the method of public consultation adopted by the Maharashtra committee. According to his account, complex questions concerning marriage, infertility, marital stability and dispute resolution were being framed largely in a yes-or-no format, something he argued could prevent people from providing nuanced responses.
That disagreement has now opened a wider window into one of the most consequential legal and political debates in contemporary India.
Why Justice R.C. Chavan resigned
Maharashtra constituted a seven-member committee in July 2026, headed by retired Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjana Desai, to prepare a framework for implementation of a Uniform Civil Code in the State.
Justice Chavan participated in the committee’s early deliberations but resigned on September 19.
His objection was not simply to the principle of a UCC.
In subsequent comments, Chavan said he believed the exercise could be useful if it helped create greater social unity rather than division. His concern was with the process through which public opinion was being gathered.
He said the questionnaire being prepared by the panel relied too heavily on binary responses despite the complexity of the subjects being examined. In his view, respondents should have the opportunity to give longer explanations or multiple responses where appropriate.
He also raised concerns about the way committee meetings were conducted and about the participation of an officer who was not formally a member of the panel, according to his resignation letter.
Those concerns are significant because consultation is particularly important when legislation touches areas such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and family relationships.
A yes-or-no questionnaire can produce easily measurable data.
But the political and legal question is whether numerical responses alone can capture the complexity of personal law.
That is the debate Justice Chavan’s resignation has brought into the open.
Congress turns the resignation into a larger political argument
Jairam Ramesh has used the episode to challenge the wider UCC strategy being pursued by BJP-ruled States.
His central question is constitutional as much as political: if several States enact their own UCCs, how “uniform” can those codes ultimately be?
This is not merely a rhetorical issue.
The Constitution’s Directive Principles include Article 44, which says the State shall endeavour to secure for citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.
But the Constitution does not itself prescribe a detailed UCC.
The practical question of what such a code should contain, how it should interact with existing personal laws and whether it should be enacted nationally or through States has therefore remained a matter of legislative and political debate.
The Constituent Assembly itself debated the issue.
Recent historical research into those debates shows that there was support for the idea of a common civil framework, but also concern about religious freedom, diversity and the manner and timing of implementation. Dr B.R. Ambedkar supported the constitutional provision while also emphasising that the UCC was not intended to be imposed immediately or without legislative consideration.
That history is important because today’s political arguments are sometimes presented as though the Constitution provided a completely settled blueprint.
It did not.
It provided a constitutional direction, while leaving the substance and legislative pathway to future political and legal processes.
India already has one UCC — but the model is not nationwide
The UCC debate changed substantially after Uttarakhand became the first State in independent India to bring a comprehensive UCC into force.
The Uttarakhand Assembly passed its UCC Bill in February 2024, and the Act was notified in March 2024. The framework subsequently came into operation in January 2025.
The State’s official UCC portal describes the law as covering areas including marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and succession.
Uttarakhand’s experience is now being watched closely by other States.
But the political landscape has changed further in 2026.
Gujarat passed its UCC Bill in March 2026 after an extended Assembly debate and opposition objections.
Assam followed by passing its UCC Bill in May 2026, although the legislation generated substantial debate over provisions relating to Scheduled Tribes, live-in relationships and consultation.
Madhya Pradesh has also moved toward a UCC, with its Cabinet approving a draft and the government pursuing legislation during 2026.
This means the debate is no longer theoretical.
India is beginning to see different State-level experiments with common civil-law frameworks.
And that is precisely where Ramesh’s question about “uniform” codes gains political relevance.
Are State UCCs actually uniform?
The answer, at least at present, is not entirely.
The laws and proposed laws in different States do not necessarily contain identical provisions.
Uttarakhand’s framework, for example, has provisions covering marriage, divorce, succession and live-in relationships. Gujarat’s legislation similarly deals with marriage, divorce, succession and live-in relationships. Assam’s law has its own provisions and exemptions, including provisions affecting Scheduled Tribes.
This does not necessarily make the concept constitutionally impossible.
A “uniform” civil framework within a State can still be uniform for the people to whom that State’s legislation applies, even if another State adopts a different code.
But politically, the terminology creates an obvious question:
If Maharashtra, Gujarat, Assam, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh adopt different versions, what exactly does “Uniform Civil Code” mean at the national level?
That question is likely to become more important if more States proceed with separate legislation.
The 2018 Law Commission position needs careful reading
Congress has also returned to the Law Commission’s 2018 consultation on family law.
Ramesh cited the 21st Law Commission’s conclusion that a UCC was “neither necessary nor desirable at this stage” and said the Commission instead favoured reforming discriminatory provisions within existing personal laws while protecting India’s legal and cultural diversity.
The Law Commission’s official archive confirms that its 2018 UCC consultation materials form part of its published record.
But there is an important chronological qualification.
The 2018 document was produced by the 21st Law Commission, during an earlier stage of the UCC debate. It should not be treated as the permanent or current position of every subsequent Law Commission.
Indeed, the 22nd Law Commission later initiated a fresh consultation on the UCC in 2023.
That distinction matters because political arguments often treat a previous Law Commission consultation as though it were a binding judicial or constitutional determination.
It was neither.
A Law Commission consultation paper is an advisory exercise, not legislation and not a Supreme Court judgment.
Why the UCC debate is legally complicated
The phrase “Uniform Civil Code” can sound simple.
The legal reality is not.
India’s personal-law landscape includes laws and customary practices relating to marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption and succession. Some are religion-specific; others are already secular and apply across communities.
There are also special constitutional protections and customary systems in several parts of the country.
Any national UCC would therefore have to answer difficult questions:
- Which existing laws would be replaced?
- Which customary practices would remain protected?
- How would tribal customary laws be treated?
- What would happen to existing marriages?
- How would inheritance rights change?
- Would live-in relationships be regulated?
- How would the law treat adoption and guardianship?
- What exemptions, if any, would apply?
- How would different State laws interact with a future national code?
These are not merely political questions.
They are legislative-design questions with direct consequences for millions of families.
Marriage and divorce are only part of the story
Much of the public discussion around the UCC focuses on marriage.
But the more consequential legal changes can involve inheritance and succession.
A common framework could affect how property passes after death, the rights of spouses and children, intestate succession and the treatment of wills.
Different UCC proposals have also addressed live-in relationships.
Uttarakhand’s framework regulates registration of live-in relationships, while the Gujarat and Assam approaches have included provisions dealing with such relationships. Assam’s legislation, in particular, triggered debate over registration requirements and penalties.
This explains why Justice Chavan’s objection to simplistic consultation questions has attracted attention.
A question such as whether a person supports “regulation of live-in relationships” can produce a yes-or-no answer.
But the harder questions begin afterward:
What kind of regulation? Who must register? What happens to privacy? What rights do partners have? What happens when a relationship ends? What protections exist for women and children?
Those details determine the real impact of legislation.
The political divide is sharper than the legal debate
For the BJP and its supporters, the UCC has long been presented as a question of equal civil rights and common rules rather than religion-specific personal laws.
The argument is that citizens should be subject to the same civil rules regardless of religious identity.
Opponents, including Congress and several regional parties, have raised concerns about religious freedom, diversity, consultation and the possibility that apparently neutral rules could disproportionately affect particular communities.
These positions represent different approaches to the same constitutional tension:
How can India pursue equality before the law while preserving legitimate diversity in personal and customary practices?
The answer cannot be determined simply by political slogans.
It depends on the actual text of the legislation.
The Assam experience shows why exemptions matter
Assam’s UCC debate provides a useful illustration.
The Bill passed by the State Assembly generated objections from Opposition members over the exclusion of Scheduled Tribes and concerns about live-in relationship provisions.
That raises an important issue for the wider national debate.
If a State UCC contains exemptions for particular communities or constitutional areas, does that undermine uniformity?
Or are such exemptions necessary precisely because the Constitution recognises India’s social and cultural diversity?
There is no simple answer.
The question ultimately depends on how Parliament, State legislatures and courts interpret the relationship between uniform civil rules, equality, religious freedom and constitutional protections.
Maharashtra now faces a credibility test
For Maharashtra, Justice Chavan’s resignation creates an early test of the committee’s consultation process.
The committee is headed by retired Supreme Court judge Ranjana Desai and was created to develop a framework rather than simply reproduce another State’s code.
The government therefore has an opportunity to demonstrate that public consultation is substantive rather than merely procedural.
That could mean allowing detailed written responses, conducting broader stakeholder consultations and publishing sufficient information about the issues being considered.
Justice Chavan himself has said that physical consultations limited to divisional headquarters and selected representatives could restrict the range of views received.
Whether the Maharashtra government changes its approach remains to be seen.
The Centre’s political timetable adds another dimension
The UCC debate is also increasingly connected to the next national electoral cycle.
Congress cited Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s stated objective of having NDA-ruled States implement UCCs before the 2029 Lok Sabha election.
The Indian Express has reported that the Centre’s strategy is increasingly moving through BJP-ruled States rather than waiting for a single national law, with progress varying from State to State.
This makes the UCC simultaneously a legal project and a political issue.
Supporters see momentum toward a longstanding policy objective.
Opponents see the State-by-State rollout as evidence of political mobilisation around identity and personal law.
The eventual significance will depend heavily on the content and implementation of the individual laws.
What Justice Chavan’s resignation actually tells us
It would be premature to treat one committee member’s resignation as proof that a UCC exercise is fundamentally flawed.
Justice Chavan himself has said that he believes the exercise can contribute to unity; his dispute was substantially about how consultation should be conducted.
But the resignation does raise a legitimate institutional question:
Can a major reform of personal law command broad public confidence if the consultation process itself becomes controversial?
That is a question for Maharashtra’s committee to answer.
It is also a question other States pursuing similar legislation will have to confront.
The bigger constitutional question
India’s UCC debate has now moved beyond the familiar argument of “UCC versus no UCC”.
The emerging questions are much more specific.
What should a UCC contain?
Should there be one national code or State-level codes?
How should tribal and customary laws be treated?
What level of public consultation is sufficient?
How should privacy and individual autonomy be balanced against regulation?
How should existing marriages and property arrangements be protected during transition?
And perhaps most importantly, how can a reform intended to create common civil rules retain legitimacy among people whose social and religious traditions are not identical?
These questions will determine the substance of the debate far more than political slogans on either side.
A debate that is unlikely to disappear
The Congress charge that the UCC is being used to maintain “permanent polarisation” is a political interpretation and should be understood as such.
The BJP and governments pursuing UCC legislation have articulated a different rationale, centred on common civil rules and reform of personal laws.
What is objectively clear is that the UCC has moved from a long-standing constitutional aspiration into an active legislative experiment in several States.
Uttarakhand has an operational framework. Gujarat has passed its legislation. Assam has passed its UCC Bill. Madhya Pradesh has been moving its proposal through the legislative process, while Maharashtra is still at the committee and consultation stage.
That makes the Maharashtra episode particularly timely.
Justice R.C. Chavan’s resignation has brought the mechanics of consultation into the political spotlight. Jairam Ramesh’s response has widened that controversy into a national argument over federalism, uniformity and the political purpose of UCC legislation.
The next phase of the debate will depend less on slogans and more on the laws themselves — their provisions, exemptions, enforcement mechanisms, constitutional compatibility and the consultation that precedes them.
For a reform touching some of the most intimate areas of citizens’ lives, the credibility of the process may ultimately matter almost as much as the code that emerges from it.
