Introduction
The recent observation of the Delhi High Court in September 2025 has once again reignited the national debate on the long-pending issue of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India. While dealing with matters related to child marriage, the court highlighted a serious conflict between personal laws—covering family issues such as marriage, divorce, succession, and inheritance based on religious customs—and the statutory criminal laws enacted by Parliament to protect children and society.
For example, some personal laws may recognize or indirectly allow child marriages under certain religious or customary practices. However, statutory laws such as the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) clearly criminalize these practices to safeguard minors. This conflict shows the difficult balance between individual rights rooted in tradition and the State’s duty to uphold constitutional morality and protect vulnerable groups.
By pointing out this contradiction, the Delhi High Court has once again drawn attention to Article 44 of the Indian Constitution. This Article directs the State to work toward a Uniform Civil Code that would harmonize different personal laws into a common code. The aim is to ensure equality, gender justice, and uniformity in civil matters regardless of religion. At the same time, the court’s remarks raise concerns about the protection of religious freedom under Articles 25–28, which guarantee the right to practice and propagate one’s faith, subject to public order, morality, and health.
This judicial intervention reflects a recurring constitutional dilemma: Article 44 promotes uniformity in civil laws for national integration and equality, while Articles 25–28 protect religious diversity and autonomy. The Delhi High Court’s observation highlights the ongoing struggle between tradition and reform, reviving the larger debate on constitutional priorities in a diverse democracy like India. Should the law emphasize equality and uniformity, or should it safeguard cultural and religious plurality? The issue of child marriage—touching both child protection and respect for cultural practices—shows how urgent these questions are.
Importantly, this development comes at a time when India’s legal reforms are increasingly being judged by standards of gender justice, human rights, and global equality. By exposing the contradiction between personal laws and statutory mandates, the Delhi High Court has opened the door for broader discussions—not just in courts but also among lawmakers, policymakers, civil society, and the public. The debate over the UCC is no longer just theoretical or ideological; it is becoming a practical need to resolve real conflicts between law and faith, tradition and modernity, and individual rights and collective justice.
The Legal Conflict
The conflict appears mainly because child marriage is treated differently across legal frameworks:
- The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA): It declares marriages where either party is below the legal age (18 for females, 21 for males) as voidable at the option of the minor.
- Personal laws:
- Muslim personal law often recognizes marriage once a minor attains puberty (approximately 15 years) with guardian consent.
- The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and The Special Marriage Act, 1954 set minimum ages but often leave room for annulment rather than automatic nullity.
- Criminal law (IPC & POCSO Act): Sections such as POCSO, 2012 set the age of consent at 18, criminalizing sexual relations with minors regardless of marital status.
Thus, a marriage valid under personal law may simultaneously constitute a criminal offence under statutory law. Courts have found it challenging to reconcile these contradictions.
Judicial Trends
Notable judicial decisions show a trend toward protecting minors despite personal law claims:
- Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 800: The Supreme Court held that sexual intercourse with a wife below 18 years is an offence under POCSO, rejecting marital exemptions for child brides.
- Javed v. State of Haryana (2003) 8 SCC 369: The Court emphasized that religious practices cannot override constitutional mandates of gender justice and public order.
- Delhi HC (2025): The High Court’s recent remarks called for legislative clarity, observing that conflicting interpretations harm legal certainty and lower-court adjudication.
The Constitutional Debate
The debate around UCC centers on two opposing concerns:
Arguments in favor of a UCC
- It would ensure legal uniformity and remove contradictions between personal and statutory laws.
- It would advance gender justice by preventing discriminatory practices allowed under some personal laws.
- It would promote constitutional morality, aligning social practices with fundamental rights.
Arguments for caution or against a UCC
- There is a perceived risk that a UCC could be seen as an attack on religious freedom, especially among minorities.
- Historical debates in the Constituent Assembly (for example, comments by Mohammad Ismail) warned that an imposed UCC could disturb communal harmony.
- Practical issues: India’s heterogeneity may require a common minimum code rather than a wholesale replacement of all personal laws.
A Comparative Perspective
Comparative examples may offer lessons:
- Turkey: Adopted a Swiss-style civil code in 1926, removing religious family law.
- Indonesia: Maintains plural personal laws while enforcing a consistent minimum marriage age across communities.
- France: Uses a secular civil code that integrates family law into national civil law.
India could consider a middle path: uniformity on core rights (marriageable age, consent, maintenance, inheritance equality) while permitting cultural variations on non-essential customs.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s suggestion for a Uniform Civil Code amid conflicting child marriage laws marks a constitutional moment. The tension between personal liberty and constitutional morality warrants urgent attention. A UCC need not be an all-encompassing overhaul; it can be implemented incrementally, beginning with areas such as child marriage, guardianship, and inheritance.
As Justice Krishna Iyer observed: “The soul of the Constitution is equal justice for all citizens.” The challenge is to reconcile India’s plural identity with the constitutional promise of equality so that no child bride’s rights are lost in legal contradictions.
References
- Independent Thought v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 800.
- Javed v. State of Haryana, (2003) 8 SCC 369.
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1.
- The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
- The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937.
- Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. VII (23 November 1948).
