Shah sets 2029 UCC target for 21 NDA states; JD(U) splits on Bihar

Union Home Minister Amit Shah said in Mumbai on Sunday that BJP-led NDA governments in 21 states would introduce a Uniform Civil Code before the 2029 Lok Sabha election. He was speaking with Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis and Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde at the start of Seva Sankalp Abhiyan, a 30-day campaign from 17 September that marks Narendra Modi's 25 years in top administrative office.

"We have introduced a common civil code in several states and I am confident that before 2029, the 21 BJP-NDA ruled states will introduce UCC," Shah said. He placed the pledge next to the abolition of triple talaq and the removal of Article 370. Uttarakhand brought a UCC into force in February 2024. Gujarat and Assam followed in March and May 2026. A uniform civil code replaces separate personal laws on marriage, divorce, inheritance and adoption with a single statute that applies regardless of religion.

By Monday the pledge had opened a line inside the Bihar NDA. JD(U) national general secretary Shyam Rajak told IANS that when the idea was first raised the party had supported discussion, "but our leader Nitish Kumar had made it clear that we would not implement the UCC in Bihar, and we stand by that position." Other JD(U) voices moved the other way. State chief spokesperson Neeraj Kumar said Rajak did not speak for the party and pointed instead to a letter Nitish Kumar sent to the Law Commission when he was chief minister, arguing that no community should be hurt. He noted that no official draft had been published after Shah's remarks.

JD(U) working president Sanjay Jha is expected to meet Shah to put the party's concerns on record. National spokesperson Rajeev Ranjan Prasad said the party would discuss a formal proposal when one exists. Rashtriya Lok Morcha chief Upendra Kushwaha, another Bihar ally, said his party would wait for a text. The pattern is familiar: a national announcement from the home minister, then a week of allied parties asking for consultations that slow the calendar without an open break.

Shah's arithmetic is political as much as legal. Personal law is largely a state subject in practice even when the Directive Principles mention a uniform code. A state assembly can pass its own statute. That is how Uttarakhand, Gujarat and Assam moved. It is also why a national 2029 deadline depends on every NDA chief minister being willing to spend floor time on a bill that minority organisations will oppose and that some allies will want to amend. Bihar is the largest test of that willingness because JD(U) still treats social coalition management as its reason for existing.

The home minister used the same Mumbai briefing to say the government would deport illegal infiltrators, including Bangladeshis, and that talks continue with allies on a National Register of Citizens baseline for Manipur. He said more than 9,000 people had surrendered in the Northeast and that the government had signed over 14 peace agreements there. Those lines belong to the same campaign week. They are not the UCC, but they sit in the same speech, which is how the BJP now packages legal and demographic projects together.

What a state UCC actually contains varies. Uttarakhand's law created a registration regime for live-in relationships and set common rules on marriage age and inheritance. Critics called the live-in clauses intrusive. Supporters called them equal. Any Bihar or Uttar Pradesh text will be read first for what it does to Muslim personal law and second for what it does to tribal and Christian custom in states where those groups vote in blocs. Shah did not describe a model bill on Sunday. He described a count of states and a year.

Between now and 2029 there will be assembly elections in several of those 21 units. A chief minister who is behind in a survey will have a reason to delay. A chief minister who is ahead will have a reason to move. JD(U)'s request for a meeting is the first public brake. It does not kill the project. It does mean the 21-state sentence from Mumbai is a target, not a signed list of bills.