Justice R.C. Chavan stepped down from the seven‑member Maharashtra Uniform Civil Code committee on September 19, citing disagreements over the committee’s functioning and the way public feedback was being solicited, describing the process as reducing complex social questions to simplistic ‘yes or no’ answers.
Congress communications secretary Jairam Ramesh said Chavan’s resignation raised broader concerns about individual states drafting their own versions of a Uniform Civil Code, questioning whether the Constituent Assembly ever intended such a fragmented approach.
Ramesh referenced the 21st Law Commission’s 2018 Consultation Paper on Reform of Family Law, which concluded that a Uniform Civil Code was ‘neither necessary nor desirable at this stage’ and recommended reforms within existing personal laws while preserving India’s legal and cultural diversity.
He argued that the disparate UCCs being pursued by different states are ‘non‑uniform’, with varying provisions, procedures, penalties and exemptions, and accused the Modi government of deploying the code to ‘divide, disrupt and divert’ public opinion, calling the UCC ‘bulldozer’ aimed at permanently polarising society.
The Maharashtra committee, constituted in July under retired Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjana Desai, was intended to gather public views and build consensus on a uniform code, but Chavan’s departure highlighted internal friction over its methodology.
The Congress critique comes after Union Home Minister Amit Shah announced that NDA‑ruled states plan to introduce a Uniform Civil Code before the 2029 Lok Sabha elections, underscoring the issue’s growing political salience.
Analysts note that the clash over the UCC reflects a deeper contest between centralising legal reforms and preserving regional and community‑specific personal laws, a debate that could shape India’s electoral landscape ahead of the 2029 polls.