Lably
Skip to content

Learn it on Lably

Personal law is fairly complex, with each religion adhering to its own specific laws. In most states, registering marriages and divorces is not compulsory. Separate laws govern Hindus (the legal definition includes Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists), Muslims, Christians, Parsis, and, in some instances, inter-religious interactions; for example, the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Until 2024, Goa was an exception, where a uniform civil code applied, with all religions sharing common laws on marriages, divorces, succession, and adoption. In 2024, Uttarakhand became the first state to implement a uniform civil code, followed by Gujarat, Assam, and Madhya Pradesh in 2026.

On February 7, 2024, the Indian state of Uttarakhand incorporated a uniform civil code. In the first major reformist judgment of the 2010s, the Supreme Court of India banned the Islamic practice of "Triple Talaq" (a husband divorcing his wife by pronouncing the word "Talaq" thrice). Women's rights activists welcomed the landmark judgment.

There are about 860 Central laws as per the online repository published by the Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India as of May 2026. The government has established IndiaCode as a repository of Indian laws at the central and state levels. However, the database is not comprehensive, and many state laws are missing.

History

Ancient India represented a distinct tradition of law, and had a historically independent thought of legal theory and practice. The Dharmaśāstras played an important role. The Arthashastra, dating from 400 BC and the Manusmriti, from 100 AD, were influential treatises in India, texts that were considered authoritative legal guidance. Manu's central philosophy was tolerance and pluralism, and was cited across Southeast Asia.

Early in this period, which culminated in the creation of the Gupta Empire, relations with ancient Greece and Rome were not infrequent. The appearance of similar fundamental institutions of international law in various parts of the world show that they are inherent in international society, irrespective of culture and tradition. Inter-State relations in the pre-Islamic period resulted in clear-cut rules of warfare of a high humanitarian standard, in rules of neutrality, of treaty law, of customary law embodied in religious charters, in exchange of embassies of a temporary or semi-permanent character.

After the Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent, Islamic Sharia law spread with the establishment of Delhi Sultanate, Bengal Sultanate and Gujarat Sultanate. The Corps of Forty also played a major role by establishing some Turkish law in India.

In the 17th century, when the Mughal Empire became the world's largest economy, its sixth ruler, Aurangzeb, compiled the Fatawa-e-Alamgiri with several Arab and Iraqi Islamic scholars, which served as the main governing body in most parts of South Asia.

With the advent of the British Raj, there was a break in tradition, and Hindu and Islamic law were abolished in favour of British common law. The first royal charter for the East India Company in the 1600s granted them the ability to make laws in order to better govern its “official representatives” in India. This was a power that grew rapidly with the increase in the East India Company's influence and power over India, giving the East India Company a wider and more powerful judicial authority and jurisdiction. During the eighteenth century, the East India Company wanted a more amicable ruling system where they would not have only English Common Law dictating the laws of a state that was not English yet. They opted to have a set of laws and courts in both the interior and exterior governments where the exterior, also known as the Presidencies, was ruled by English Law, staffed by English judges and lawyers, and dealt with Englishmen. The interior, the Mofussil, dealt with native law such as Hindu and Muslim personal law, Company Regulations, and Islamic criminal law. This caused issues later in history when people who were not with the East India Company and were not native to India committed crimes in India. It was not easy to find out which law systems they should be subject to. In terms of Mofussil courts, Europeans still had an advantage over Indians since they could bring suit against Indians in any mofussil court but Indians would have to go to the Supreme Court to bring suit to Europeans. This was financially and logistically very hard, causing a lot of dismay in Indians. Europeans often used this system to abuse and exploit Indians in criminal and civil litigation. This system was ended in 1793 by the Bengal Government, which prohibited all Europeans from living more than ten miles from Calcutta unless they agreed to be subject to Mofussil courts.

In the early 1830s, there were motions within the House of Commons, during the debates for the renewal of the East India Company's royal charter, for a special “Select Committee” to be made to look into the East India Company's objectives and operations in India. The motions were brought to the attention of the House of Commons because there were concerns about the East India Company's effectiveness in the administration of justice and law-making. The general consensus coming out of the Select Committee was that the law in India required reform since the East India Company's current system had conflicting laws and had religious laws that did not bode well with unity. The East India Company's charter of 1833 radically changed the structure of law-making in India with regard to the legislatures, it replaced the legislatures of each region with an all-India Legislative Council that had wide jurisdiction and general legislative power. This stripped the law-making authority of the Presidencies which had conflicting laws and made the law more unitary in nature. The council passed all-India laws as well as an Indian Law Commission. The progenitor of this codification was a British lawyer by the name of Thomas Macaulay who became the first Law Member, the head of the All-India Legislative Council, and the first head of the Law Commission. He had gone before parliament in July 1883 to make his case as to why India's government needed reformation and, according to the minutes from the meeting, he believed that Europeans provided the grounds for representative institutions but said that “in India, you cannot have representative institutions” since they do not know “what good governance is” and the “British must be the ones to show them”. Macaulay then set his sights on being the one to codify Indian law and set sail to India by the end of 1883. By the end of 1884, Macaulay and the All-India Legislative Council had officially begun the process of the codification of Indian Law. This is when India's laws became more attuned with British Common Law, which came from rulings in British legal cases, and is what Judges used to decide cases. This meant that India had limited, on the way to becoming zero, usage of Hindu or Islamic Laws while the law of the colonizers became the predominant form of litigation. This was seemingly problematic as it did not take into concern the pre-existing Islamic and Hindu Laws that governed their societies for a long time. However, acceptance of this new code of laws was wide in India.

As a result, the present judicial system of the country derives largely from the British system and has few, if any, connections to Indian legal institutions of the pre-British era.

Sign in to keep reading

15 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Politics and economics