Secularism And Personal Laws: A Constitutional Dilemma In India
- IJLLR Journal
- Sep 10
- 2 min read
Onish Kumar, Research Scholar, Department of Law, Gurugram University
ABSTRACT
India’s constitutional framework is founded on the ideals of secularism, equality, and justice. However, the existence of religion-based personal laws governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption poses a significant constitutional dilemma. This paper investigates the complex relationship between secularism and personal laws in India, exploring how the Indian state negotiates its secular identity while allowing religious communities to retain autonomy over personal matters. Unlike the Western model of secularism that promotes a clear separation between religion and state, Indian secularism accommodates religious diversity within a pluralistic framework. Yet, this accommodation has led to legal fragmentation, wherein individuals are governed by different laws based on their religious identity, resulting in inconsistencies and inequalities, especially in matters affecting women and marginalized groups.
The study traces the historical evolution of personal laws during colonial rule and post-independence constitutional debates. It evaluates key constitutional provisions such as Articles 25–28 (freedom of religion) and Article 44 (Directive Principle on the Uniform Civil Code), alongside a critical analysis of landmark judgments by the Indian judiciary that have attempted to balance secular principles with religious freedom. The paper also explores the feasibility and implications of implementing a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), a move long debated in Indian political and legal discourse.
By incorporating comparative perspectives from other secular democracies such as Turkey and France, the research sheds light on alternative models of managing religion in personal law. Ultimately, the paper argues for a harmonized approach that preserves religious freedom while ensuring constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. The findings suggest that a rights-based reform of personal laws, grounded in constitutional morality and guided by judicial interpretation, offers a pragmatic path toward resolving this enduring constitutional dilemma.
