By – Neel Das
Abstract
On 27th January 2025, Uttarakhand became the first state to implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). The UCC is based on the idea of achieving secularism and aims to establish a common framework for all communities for the purposes of marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption, replacing religion-based personal laws with an equal and uniform structure for all. Although the legislation has its merits and challenges, it was introduced to achieve equality and uniformity. Naeem Ahmed Qureshi, president of Uttarakhand Muslim Seva Sangh, stated that there was no appropriate consensus taken among the populace and the regulations created ambiguity on matters such as marriage and inheritance. Hence, in a state like Uttarakhand, which is highly diverse both socially and culturally, the framework established makes it difficult to strike a balance between the norms of equal enforcement of the law.
Introduction
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in Uttarakhand represents one of the major legal reforms over recent years, which aims to set a standard framework governing personal law matters. The drafting process showcases significant procedural deficiencies, which were led by Retd. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai. Over 60,000 public proposals were examined, but out of those, there was little to no interaction with the affected communities. The legislation thus proceeded with a framework that lacked adequate representation from different religious groups. Recently, Scheduled Tribes were fully exempted from the UCC framework. But religious minorities, who make up around 14% of the population in Uttarakhand, are mandated to abide by the UCC framework, and this differential treatment appears contradictory to the objective of achieving genuine uniformity, as certain communities are granted exemptions while others are compelled to conform to a common framework, thus leading to an imbalance against some communities.
Evidence and Analysis
The UCC now require live-in couples to be registered within the timeframe of one month, along with mandatory Aadhaar verification, as well as certification from a religious leader. Now, this causes great concern for interfaith or inter-caste couples, since obtaining such certification can prove to be nearly impossible, given that religious leaders associated with the UCC authorities are most likely to invalidate relationships that go beyond community standards. Also, live-in couples that fail to register their relationship will have to risk jail time and fines. Such provisions concern individual autonomy, as it brings consensual adult relationships under extreme state scrutiny and such possibilities of criminal penalties will create a chilling effect, while discouraging individuals from freely exercising their personal choices, in turn violating their fundamental rights. The parental notification in the UCC also poses direct threats to individual autonomy since registrars, on grounds of suspicion, must inform parents or lawful guardians when either partner is under 21 years of age, and this data is shared with local police stations, thus leading to privacy concerns.
Alternatively, this may appear as a safety feature for accountability and landlords seeking documentation; such surveillance can disrupt personal relationships and stimulate honour-based violence in families. By subjecting consensual adult relationships to state surveillance, the provision raises concerns regarding the fundamental rights to privacy and decisional autonomy recognised under Article 21. It poses moral policing under the administration and erodes the fundamental right to privacy, thus violating the principles established in K.S. Puttaswamy vs UOI
Limitations of the UCC’s Equality Framework
Shruti Yadav in her article states that the UCC remains silent on guardianship matters, allowing the personal law framework to exist in which fathers hold legal guardianship status, and mothers function merely as custodians. This directly contradicts the 21st Law Commission of 2018 recommendation for equal parental rights. Furthermore, only women are eligible for maintenance in live-in relationships, that too solely on the grounds of desertion, and available regardless of the cause for divorce. This, in turn, contrasts with the maintenance provisions in marriages, where relief that is granted is irrespective of the cause of separation. The framework, instead of advancing towards substantive equality, brings about gender disparity.
Additionally, the other concerns include invalidating same-sex live-in relationships given that UCC recognises only heterosexual relationships, thus violating the constitutional principles established in Navtej Singh Johar v UOI. Similarly, the minimum age of marriage prescribed in the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021 at the Union level, requires raising the age from 18 to 21. This comes in direct conflict with the UCC’s minimum age of marriage requirement being 18 years.
Policy Recommendation
There is a dire requirement for amendments to the Uttarakhand UCC, and this should involve consultations with different communities and minority representations. The amendments brought about should address the principal concerns identified in the legislation. Instead of imprisonment and fines for non-registration, the law should offer legal protection, such as maintenance rights, inheritance claims, securities, etc., to registered couples and hence create incentive-based compliance. Also, replacing the religious leaders with official government registrars would reduce obstruction for interfaith couples. The provision for parental notification should be reduced to 18 years of age instead of 21 years, and implement the Law Commission recommendation for equal parental guardianship rights, and additionally, enhance gender-neutral maintenance provisions for all relationships to ensure uniformity. Additionally, such legislation needs to be mandatorily reviewed to ensure that it is consistent with constitutional values such as equality, privacy, and non-discrimination, especially through the lens of queer/same-sex relationships and other vulnerable groups. Collectively, these reforms would bring UCC closer to objectives of equality and uniformity, thus preserving the values of dignity and constitutional safeguards. Thus, A reform-oriented approach to the UCC must be implemented to balance constitutional needs with respect for social diversity and personal autonomy.
Implementation Consideration
Effective implementation of the reforms, as said by Dr Venudhar Routiya, requires clear allocation of resources along with coordination across departments. The State Government should appoint registrars and administrators to act on these reforms, while ensuring that the registration procedures are uniform, transparent and maintain professionalism, especially for interfaith/ inter-caste relationships. Training authorities should be mandated to prevent arbitrary enforcement and moral policing.
Before Gujarat and other states proceed with similar legislation, a proper course of action must be implemented to avoid conflict with the autonomy of couples and violating their fundamental rights. Additionally, the UCC amendment should align with the constitutional mandate via protection for same-sex couples, as held in Navtej Singh Johar vs UOI, harmonize marriage age as per central legislation and safeguard women’s right of inheritance as per personal laws. Challenges can include resistance from the local authorities, limited institutional capacity, as well as concerns for data misuse, risking the privacy of the couples. These risks can be mitigated through judicial oversight in cases of misuse or leakage of data and periodic audits of such institutions.
Conclusion
True uniformity exists not through imposing a rigid framework upon people of different diversities, but through principles of equality, justice, and dignity. These principles should apply universally, to the extent that everyone receives a shared constitutional vision rooted in equal rights, individual liberty, and respect for diversity, values that Dr B.R. Ambedkar believed were essential to a just and inclusive society. The idea is to carry forward the idea that is inclusive, secular and progressive.
About the Author
Neel Das is a 2nd year LL. B student at Jindal Global Law School. His areas of interest are human rights, constitutional law and international law.
Image Source: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/432064158022134814/