Maharashtra UCC Panel Member Resigns, Art 44 | CLAT GK

CURRENT AFFAIRS | 22 SEPTEMBER 2026

A member of Maharashtra’s Uniform Civil Code (UCC) committee has resigned. According to a report by Sadaf Modak in The Indian Express (Mumbai, 21 September 2026), retired Bombay High Court judge Justice R C Chavan sent his resignation on 19 September 2026, hours after the committee held an online meeting — its second. The state government accepted the resignation on Monday, 21 September. In his email to the committee, Justice Chavan cited differences over the process of seeking public feedback and questioned the alleged presence and role of a non-member at the meeting.

The seven-member committee is headed by retired Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai. IE reported that phone calls and messages to Justice Desai seeking comment did not get a response. The episode is small in itself, but it throws light on a question that matters as more states move towards a UCC: how should a committee drafting a law on personal matters consult the public?

What the resignation letter says

As reported by IE, Justice Chavan wrote that one of the agenda items for the meeting was to finalise the questionnaire for public feedback on the UCC. Instead, a questionnaire already finalised by the chairperson was circulated, and members were told it would be uploaded once the committee’s website was ready. He wrote that three members tried to put forward their views — for instance, on respondents being required to answer only “yes or no”, and on having the questionnaire examined professionally — but the chairperson had already circulated her version, the agenda item was treated as over, and he logged out. He said he had understood the exercise to be about gathering the views of the people of Maharashtra and building a consensus to address problems such as unstable marriages and time-consuming dispute resolution; he now realised the aim was simply to let people give “yes or no” responses so that analysis of the data would be easy.

The email also alleged that a person who was not a member attended the meeting and said the website prepared by state officials needed changes, after which the chairperson directed officials to make them within a week. Justice Chavan wrote that he did not know where this person fitted in. He said he was vacating his seat so that the government could fill it promptly, and that, as a free citizen, he would be free to air his views. These are the claims made in his letter as reported; the committee’s response is not yet on record.

The committee and its mandate

Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis announced the committee in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly on 9 July 2026, according to a PTI report carried by ThePrint. Its members were Justice Ranjana Desai (chair); retired High Court judges R C Chavan and S G Mehare; former Chief Secretary D K Jain; former Advocate General Birendra Saraf; social activist Ramesh Patange; and educationist Suvarna Rawal. Its mandate is to study “all legal, social, and administrative aspects” of a UCC and report with recommendations within six months. The Chief Minister said the government would try to introduce and pass a UCC Bill in both Houses during the winter session in Nagpur.

Where other states stand

Uttarakhand enacted the Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand Act, 2024, the first such law passed by a state legislature after Independence. It came into force on 27 January 2025. It covers marriage, divorce, succession and live-in relationships (which must be registered), and it keeps Scheduled Tribes outside its scope. In Gujarat, a high-level UCC committee, also led by Justice Ranjana Desai, submitted its final draft report to Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel on 17 March 2026, according to All India Radio; the report followed public feedback gathered across the state’s districts. IE notes that Justice Desai also headed UCC panels in Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh. The PTI report on the Maharashtra committee also recorded that Assam passed a UCC Bill in May 2026.

Goa is the long-standing exception. It follows a common civil code derived from the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867, which was kept in force after Goa became part of India in 1961. It is often cited in the UCC debate, though scholars point out that it has community-specific exceptions of its own.

The Supreme Court and the Law Commission

The Supreme Court has referred to Article 44 in several well-known judgments. In Mohd. Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum (1985), it upheld a divorced Muslim woman’s claim to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and regretted that Article 44 had remained a “dead letter”. In Sarla Mudgal v Union of India (1995), it held that a Hindu husband who converts to Islam to marry again, without dissolving his first marriage, can be prosecuted for bigamy, and it urged the government to reconsider Article 44. In John Vallamattom v Union of India (2003), it struck down Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which restricted Christians’ bequests for religious or charitable purposes, and again spoke of the desirability of a common civil code. In each case, the Court urged but did not direct, respecting Article 37.

The Law Commission has approached the question twice in recent years. The 21st Law Commission, in its August 2018 consultation paper on reform of family law, said a UCC was “neither necessary nor desirable at this stage” and suggested reforming existing personal laws to remove discrimination instead. The 22nd Law Commission, in June 2023, issued a public notice seeking fresh views from the public and religious organisations on a UCC. The contrast shows that the design of a consultation — who is asked, and what they are asked — is itself a significant choice.

Analysis: consultation as a test of legitimacy

A UCC changes rules on marriage, divorce, inheritance and adoption — the most personal areas of law. Whatever view one takes on the merits, the legitimacy of such a law depends heavily on the quality of the process behind it. A structured yes-or-no questionnaire is easy to tabulate and allows large numbers of people to take part; an open-ended consultation surfaces practical problems and minority concerns but is harder to analyse. Both are defensible designs, and each has costs. Justice Chavan’s letter, as reported, raises the question of who decides that design — the chair alone or the full committee — and whether people outside the committee should influence it.

For the state, the immediate tasks are practical: filling the vacancy and keeping to the six-month timeline. For students, the story is a compact case study linking Articles 37 and 44, the Concurrent List and Article 254, and the role of expert committees and public consultation in law-making.