Earlier this week, Gujarat Deputy Chief Minister Harsh Sanghavi tabled the Gujarat Uniform Civil Code, 2026, in the Legislative Assembly. The Bill, if passed, will make Gujarat the third state in India, after Goa and Uttarakhand, to have a uniform law regulating marriage, divorce, and succession across religion and communities.It makes several key changes. It outlaws polygamy and discriminatory practices like nikah-halala, mandates registration of marriages and live-in relationships, and recognises maintenance rights in the latter along with the legitimacy of the child born from such relationships. According to reports, the Bill will be taken up for discussion and passage on March 24, just a day before the conclusion of the Assembly session, giving it barely any time for critical debate and scrutiny, despite the significant changes it proposes.AdvertisementAlso Read | Express View on Uttarakhand UCC: A dangerous precedentThe enactment of a Uniform Civil Code is a constitutional obligation of the state enshrined under Article 44 of the Constitution. Its enactment found support from Dr B R Ambedkar, who argued for unified laws on marriage and succession, akin to the existing criminal and civil code, as well as from reformists Hansa Mehta and Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, who saw it as an opportunity to eliminate discriminatory practices against women.However, this support came with a caveat: That in designing such a Code, Parliament would incorporate only the most suitable provisions and not be guided by religious considerations. Underlying this caveat was the expectation that Parliament would undertake a rigorous study of diverse personal laws, identify the best practices, and only then formulate a uniform framework. To a considerable extent, this approach was reflected in the preparation of the Hindu Code Bill, which underwent a decade-long process of deliberation, consultation, and extensive debate in Parliament before enactment. The Gujarat UCC, however, appears to depart from this tradition of rigour and deliberation.The Bill is the product of a five-member committee constituted by the Gujarat government in February last year. While announcing the appointment, the chief minister had remarked that the committee would examine numerous aspects and gather feedback from all stakeholders before making its recommendations. However, despite a year of deliberations, the final document appears to have selectively cut, copied, and pasted existing laws, made minor modifications, and created a new code.AdvertisementThe Bill amalgamates the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for provisions governing marriage and adoption), the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for provisions governing intestate and testamentary succession), and the UCC of Uttarakhand, 2024 (for provisions on live-in relationships). These appear to serve not merely as sources of inspiration but as templates, with several provisions reproduced verbatim. For instance, the provisions in the Gujarat UCC on void marriage, divorce, and remarriage closely track the language of the Hindu Marriage Act. Similarly, the chapter on live-in relationships is a replica of the Uttarakhand UCC. This replication extends not only to the structure of provisions but also to examples and illustrations.Where changes do occur, they are largely formal – relating to sequencing or the names used in illustrations. For instance, Mary becomes Divya, Thomas becomes Sanjay, and John becomes Mohan in illustrations explaining the nuances of wills. The Statement of Objects and Reasons asserts that the Committee undertook a comprehensive study of existing personal laws, judicial pronouncements, and comparative practices across jurisdictions before submitting its Report. A closer reading of the Bill, however, raises questions about the depth of this exercise.The Bill also constitutes a missed opportunity for reform. While the move to outlaw polygamy and discriminatory practices like nikah-halala is welcome, it overlooks other areas such as restitution of conjugal rights, which is currently pending a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court. Further, a consistent position of the government — both at the Centre and the state — has been to simplify existing laws and move away from the colonial legacy in law-making. The present Bill appears to do neither. It retains the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which is not only a colonial legislation but also notably complex and lengthy.you may likeThe Bill attempts to unify the laws applicable to all residents of the state on personal matters of marriage, divorce, and succession, which is an exercise that warrants careful deliberation, and most importantly, meaningful consultation. The text of the Bill effectively extends the framework governing Hindus to other communities, including Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, and others, who together constitute approximately 12 per cent of the state’s population.Even if one plays the devil’s advocate and assumes that these provisions reflect the most suitable practices across religions, a clearer justification ought to have been articulated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons. Hopefully, it will be in the upcoming debate on the floor of the House and in the government’s outreach to the community. Such an exercise requires a degree of sensitivity, given that religion remains a deeply personal and often polarising subject. The pace at which the Bill is being advanced, however, raises concerns about whether this standard has been met.The writer leads Charkha, the Constitutional Law Centre at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Views are personal