From Directive to Diktat: BJP’s UCC Push Negates the Legislative Intent of the Constituent Assembly and Ambedkar’s Vision

THE UNIFORM CIVIL CODE (UCC) remains an article of faith for the Bharatiya Janata Party’s Hindutva project. In January 2025, Uttarakhand formally implemented the UCC, while Gujarat, Assam and Madhya Pradesh passed their own legislation. West Bengal, Rajasthan and Maharashtra have formed committees to prepare or review draft bills. This rushed yet systematic state-wise implementation originates from Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s public vow to introduce the UCC in the 21 BJP-NDA-ruled states by 2029. BJP leaders also openly revealed the Hindutva colouring of the UCC. While introducing the UCC in the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, Chief Minister Mohan Yadav raised slogans like “Jai Shree Ram” and “Jo Hindu hit ki baat karega, wahi Pradesh me raaj karega (whoever speaks for Hindu interests will rule the State)”. Similarly, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma embraced the influence of his RSS background on his commitment, claiming that “had I not been a BJP CM and a swayamsevak of RSS, probably I would not have been able to bring the UCC to the Assembly”.

True to its age-old practice of appropriating Ambedkar, the BJP leadership has again invoked his Constituent Assembly views on the UCC. Prime Minister Narendra Modi claimed that “Babasaheb Ambedkar greatly advocated for ending religion-based personal laws”. Similarly, Madhya Pradesh CM Mohan Yadav drew support for the UCC from Ambedkar, Syama Prasad Mookerjee and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel in a single breath, declaring that “the enactment of this law” in MP “demonstrates our genuine commitment to the vision of ‘One Nation, One Constitution, One Flag, One Leader’, championed by Dr. Ambedkar, Sardar Patel and Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee”. This shows that Ambedkar’s thoughts are quoted partially and out of context, corrupting his original views. Thus, it is crucial to examine Ambedkar’s views closely and revisit other Constituent Assembly members' opposition to the UCC. Such a revision presents the full picture of the debate in which Ambedkar intervened.

Struggle Over the Word “Directive”

Article 44, which states that “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India”, is one of the many Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in the Indian Constitution. Therefore, we must first examine the Constituent Assembly members’ diverse views on the idea of “directive” itself. On November 19, 1948, the Constituent Assembly debated whether the word “Directive” in the “Directive Principles of State Policy” should be retained. Kazi Syed Karimuddin, a prominent criminal lawyer, moved the amendment that the word “Directive” be replaced with “Fundamental”. He contended that such principles were toothless as they were non-binding and non-justiciable. For him, “it is no use treating these principles as Directive; such a course will not prove to be the good of the people and the State”. This sentiment was shared by other members, including H.V. Kamath, an ex-ICS officer, and Naziruddin Ahmad, a Calcutta-based lawyer elected on a Muslim League ticket. Ahmad opposed the word “directive”, labelling Directive Principles “pious principles” which should not be “enunciated unless there is the backing of the law and they are also made justiciable”. Including such principles in the Constitution without making them justiciable turns them into “resolutions made on New Year’s Day which are broken on the 2^nd of January”. For Ahmad, Karimuddin rightly demanded that the Directive Principles be made fundamental and justiciable.