Madhya Pradesh CM Mohan Yadav announced on July 17 that the Uniform Civil Code Bill will be tabled during the Monsoon Session beginning July 20.
The MP UCC follows a high-level committee report chaired by retired Supreme Court Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.
The 'residency rights' framing of the monogamy provision is constitutionally novel and legally fraught.
At a school inauguration ceremony in Katni district on July 17, 2026, Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Mohan Yadav said something that immediately dominated the national news cycle: 'If Ram can have only one marriage, why should Rahim have two, three or four? Our Muslim sisters are also our sisters. Under the proposed Uniform Civil Code, only a person who has one marriage will have the legal right to reside in Madhya Pradesh.'
The UCC Bill is expected to be tabled during the Monsoon Session of the Madhya Pradesh Assembly, which begins on July 20 and runs until July 25. A high-level committee, headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai, submitted its final report to the CM — and the report has now been forwarded to the Law Department for legal scrutiny before Cabinet consideration. If passed, Madhya Pradesh will become the second state after Uttarakhand to implement a Uniform Civil Code.
What Exactly Did Mohan Yadav Say?
Yadav said the proposed UCC would be applicable to people of all religions, 'When there should be one nation, one Constitution, one head and one flag, why should there be separate laws for Hindus and Muslims? There should be one law for everyone.
’The second statement — on residency rights — is the one legal scholars are already questioning. Yadav may have been expressing a political aspiration rather than drafting a legal provision, but the statement's implications are specific enough to have drawn immediate reaction from Muslim groups and the Congress opposition, with Congress spokesperson Abbas Hafeez calling the remarks divisive.
Is Madhya Pradesh Preparing To Implement A UCC?
Madhya Pradesh has reached a decisive stage in UCC implementation. The Desai committee prepared its report after nearly a year of study, extensive public consultation, and a comparative analysis of laws from various states and countries. It covers marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, maintenance, and live-in relationships. The committee recommends that every adult couple in a live-in relationship within the state must register their relationship.
The committee's mandate and the draft's scope closely mirror Uttarakhand's 2024 UCC framework. The Uttarakhand model became operational on January 27, 2025, making it the first comprehensive state UCC in independent India, and Madhya Pradesh has clearly studied it as a template.
Can A State Legally Mandate Monogamy — And Tie It To Residency?
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, already prohibits polygamy for Hindus. The Uttarakhand UCC extended that prohibition to all residents regardless of religion. A state UCC applying the same standard to all residents sits comfortably within Entry 5 of the Concurrent List (marriage and divorce) and Article 44's directive that the state endeavour to secure a uniform civil code. Several Supreme Court judgments have repeatedly urged Parliament and state legislatures to act on UCC.
Legal scholars point out that Article 44 provides a non-justiciable but guiding principle for the state, allowing states to legislate on civil matters while remaining subject to judicial review.
The residency-rights framing is a different and far more constitutionally fraught matter. 19(1)(e) of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. Conditioning that fundamental right on marital structure — telling a person they may not legally reside in Madhya Pradesh because they have contracted more than one marriage — would almost certainly be challenged as an unreasonable restriction on a fundamental right.
How Would The Proposal Affect Existing Personal Laws?
Muslim Personal Law currently permits polygamy for men under Sharia, subject to conditions. A state UCC prohibiting polygamy would supersede Muslim Personal Law on that specific question for residents of Madhya Pradesh. Constitutional provisons should mean where Entry 5 of the Concurrent List gives both Centre and states jurisdiction over marriage, the union law should supersede the state law.
For Hindu residents, who are already legally barred from polygamy under the Hindu Marriage Act, the UCC provision would be redundant in substance. The effective target audience of the monogamy provision — as made clear by Yadav's Ram–Rahim framing — is Muslim men exercising a right currently available under their personal law.
What Lessons Does Uttarakhand's UCC Offer?
Uttarakhand's UCC applies to all residents except Scheduled Tribes — recognising the constitutional protections under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules. The Act mandates registration of all marriages and live-in relationships. It prohibits polygamy, nikah halala, and iddat.
Since becoming operational on January 27, 2025, the law has generated significant implementation challenges: registration infrastructure has been slow to deploy in rural and mountainous areas, and the criminalisation of unregistered live-in relationships has attracted criticism from civil liberties groups as disproportionate.
The Uttarakhand precedent suggests that the political announcement of a UCC is considerably simpler than its operational delivery. Madhya Pradesh is a much larger, more populous, and more demographically complex state than Uttarakhand.
What Constitutional And Political Questions Does The Proposal Raise?
The constitutional questions are layered. First: can a state UCC override central personal law statutes, and on which matters? The Concurrent List gives states space, but central law on the same subject prevails under Article 254. Second: does the residency-rights framing survive scrutiny under Article 19? Third: does the mandatory live-in registration provision violate the right to privacy recognised in the Puttaswamy judgment? All three questions are pending in Uttarakhand courts and will be reprised in Madhya Pradesh if the bill passes.
The BJP has a comfortable majority in the MP Assembly and the Bill will pass if tabled. What happens in court afterwards — and whether the Centre's national UCC aspirations are helped or complicated by state-level experiments that overreach — will be the more consequential questions for India's civil code debate in the years ahead.
