India is a country with a lot of diversities; cultures and religions. Right from the Vedic period there was so much diversity in India that no uniform law was made applicable through out the land. Each family, each tribe, each village had their own DHARMA. No uniformity was there anywhere except probably the fact that land was known as “VRIHAD BHARATA”. This position did not change; infact worsened when Muslims conquered India about 1600 years ago. At the first instance there was Turkish reign and there after the Mughals came and ruled India till British rule was established in India. Since, both Hindu and Muslim systems are very old hence, lot of schools/theories exist in them. If Hindu law had Mitakshara and Dayabhaga etc. then on the other hand Muslim law had Shia and Sunni schools. These schools are thereafter further divided into different sub-schools. Hence, the condition naturally worsened during the Muslim reign though great rulers like Akbar honestly tried to maintain uniformity in law but it was of no use as the society itself was widely divided because of difference of opinion and prevailing customs throughout the land. When British arrived in India in late 17th century they just bewildered after seeing diverse laws prevailing at that time in India. There were different personal laws for different communities and in different parts and issues like adoption/inheritance etc. were also governed according to different sub-schools. Even there was no uniformity in criminal law and different people were punished differently for the same offence committed by them. During their rule British tried to replace this diversity with uniformity in law resulting in enactments like Indian Penal Code in 1861 and Indian Evidence Act in 1872. Muslim rules of evidence were replaced by English rules and the court system of England was adopted through out the British India territory uniformly. But when they tried to use Roman law and Common law principles in Indian personal law; the interpretation increased the existing confusion. Hence, they decided not to interfere in personal law. This resulted in to a situation wherein the Hindus were governed by their own law and after 1937 when Shariat Act was passed Muslims got statutory recognition of the fact that personal law will be governed according to religion and there will be no uniformity in it as statute decided not to interfere in it. After independence in 1947, with India having visionary leaders like Nehru Ji, Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel, Maulana Azad, and Ambedkar etc. it was hoped that uniformity will come to Indian personal law and each Indian will be governed according to one sect of law applicable through out India. The hope remained alive when Article 44 was inserted into the Constitution of India directing government of India to make uniform civil code as soon as possible. But after facing horrible time of partition fear and insecurity in the mind of Indian Muslim was so prevalent that it was felt among general people that it will result in interference in their religious matter. Such was the situation that not only Muslims opposed it but Hindus were also against the enactment of the uniform civil code. These things were in the minds of the constitutional assembly at the time of framing of the Constitution. However, with the active support of persons like Sh. K. M. Munshi Article 44 was entered in. However, it was strongly felt by persons favouring uniform civil code that it was impossible to enact U.C.C. with out the interference of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. But the problem was that Apex court had considered view that Court cannot give guideline for the enforcement of Directive Principles of State policy. The position changed only after decision of Minerva Mill’s case wherein Bhagwati J. said that Court can give guidelines to State for the implementation of Directive principles. This matter came before the Hon’ble Apex Court for the first time in Begum Shah Banu’s case in 1985; in the case the court held that a Muslim husband is bound to maintain his wife even beyond the period of idda (a compulsory period to be observed by wife after divorce which is generally of 3 months, in this period she can not marry again) and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made applicable to the Muslims. The decision was fiercely opposed by Muslim leaders all over India who claimed that a Muslim husband is liable to maintain his wife only till the period of idda and not after that. This can very well be seen to be a glaring piece of gender inequality in the Muslim personal law. It is to be seen that gender inequality is not only prohibited in Article 14,15 and 21 of the Constitution of India but also by Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3 and 25 of International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights 1966, Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 and Article 2(f) of The Declaration on Elimination of all Discriminations against Women 1979. India is signatory to all of the above treaties and Article 50 of the Constitution of India makes it obligatory for Government of India to follow these treaties. But the effect of this landmark judgment was nullified by the then Rajiv Gandhi government by enacting Muslim women’s act in 1986.Gender inequality is not only under Muslim law but it is also the problem of un-codified Hindu law also. However, most of the inequalities in Hindu law were ended by codification of Hindu law on marriage, succession, adoption and maintenance etc. in the decade of 1950’s. But still inequalities prevail as Hindu woman cannot take in adoption of a child herself while she is married, she can not choose her matrimonial home in most of the circumstances and her only duty being to submit herself to the authority of her husband and to remain under his roof. Yet we call India a democratic republic! Inequalities prevailing in Muslim community like polygamy and pronouncement of divorce by triple Talak etc. are also worth mentioning here. It was once observed by the Supreme Court of U.S. that bigamy is a custom against public morals and it should be discouraged in all forms even if it was a matter of personal belief. The matter came into consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 1995 in the landmark case of Sarla Mudgil. The question before the court was of Hindu males changing religion just to avoid punishment of Bigamy in Hindu Law. The Hon’ble Court highly discouraged this practice and ordered then Narsimha Rao govt. to start work on Uniform Civil Code. However Hon’ble Kuldip Singh J. said these observations of Court are just obiter dicta and hence not binding on the government. More sadly in 2000 in the case of Lily Thomas v. Union of India, Hon’ble court said it never issued any mandatory directions for the enactment of Uniform Civil Code. But the debate was once again started by Hon’ble court in its decision dated 23/7/2003 when court said that it was sad that even after 56 years of independence no steps were taken for the enactment of U.C.C. it can not be understood that when malpractices like bigamy and triple talak have been totally disapproved in countries like Pakistan, Iran, Morocco and Turkey etc. why India is still holding these. It is commonly debated that these are essential evils to protect secularism in India. One writer has gone to the extent by saying that bigamy exists in Muslim law only to avoid adultery; so that the physical needs of Muslim male are satisfied without breaking the law. This argument can not be acceptable in any democratic society because if this is so then why polyandry (practice of a woman having more than one husbanded) is not there; or we may take the view that Muslim women have no right to satisfy their physical needs! It is a known fact that secularism is about being indifferent to religious matters of citizens and not about protecting religious malpractices. Pluralism is on such height that now Sikhs are also favouring and demanding their own personal law; although this demand is made by very few and it is not voice of the whole community. Can we think of a day when each community has its own personal law. This was never intended by our great thinkers who believed in Vasudev Kutumbkam. So there are thousands of reasons favouring uniform civil code but whether this dream will come true or not; it can be easily doubted due to ugly politics prevalent in India. Debate has already started and torch has been lighted by the judiciary. Let’s hope that one day every one will at least uniform justice in the light of our great constitution.