The Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand Act, 2024: Legal Reforms or State Overreach?

The Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly has implemented the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) of Uttarakhand Act, 2024, aimed at consolidating laws on marriage and property inheritance. However, a key concern is the mandatory registration of live-in relationships, with criminal penalties for non-compliance. This raises serious questions about individual autonomy and the state's role in regulating personal relationships.

| Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand Act, 2024 |

Understanding the Uniform Civil Code

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a proposed set of common personal laws that seek to govern marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, and other civil matters for all citizens, irrespective of religion. It is enshrined in Article 44 of the Indian Constitution as a Directive Principle of State Policy, which urges the state to work towards its implementation to promote national integration and gender equality. The idea of a UCC dates back to the colonial era when the British introduced separate personal laws for different religious communities, codifying Hindu and Muslim personal laws while leaving many customary practices untouched.

Post-independence, the framers of the Indian Constitution debated the need for a uniform legal framework, but due to socio-political sensitivities and resistance from religious groups, it was left to the government's discretion for gradual implementation. The codes of 1950s governing were a significant step in this direction, reforming Hindu personal laws while leaving other religious laws unchanged.

Over the years, the judiciary has repeatedly emphasized the need for a UCC, notably in cases such as Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985) and Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995), urging the government to work towards uniform personal laws. Goa remains the only Indian state with a UCC, inheriting the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867, which continues to govern personal laws uniformly for all its residents. Despite periodic debates and judicial interventions, the implementation of a nationwide UCC remains a contentious issue, balancing the principles of secularism, religious freedom, and legal uniformity.

Constitutional Mandate and Judicial Stance

Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, under the Directive Principles of State Policy, envisions a uniform civil code for all citizens. Implementation has been left to the discretion of the government. In Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum (1985), the Supreme Court lamented the non-implementation of Article 44. This stance was reiterated in Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995) and John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003). In Jose Paulo Coutinho v. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira (2019), the Court praised Goa’s UCC and urged for national adoption.

Law Commission’s Position

The Law Commission of India has played a crucial role in shaping the debate on the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). The 21st Law Commission, in its 2018 consultation paper, concluded that a UCC was “neither necessary nor desirable at this stage,” arguing instead for reforms within existing personal laws to ensure gender justice and equality. The report emphasized that rather than imposing uniformity, the government should focus on eliminating discriminatory practices within different religious laws through a gradual, consultative approach.

It highlighted that diversity in personal laws does not inherently contradict constitutional morality, and any move towards uniformity must be voluntary and respect pluralistic traditions. However, in 2023, the 22nd Law Commission initiated a fresh consultation, inviting public opinions on the feasibility of implementing a UCC, signaling a renewed push for legal reform. The evolving stance of the Law Commission underscores the complexities of balancing individual rights, religious freedoms, and the constitutional mandate for legal uniformity.

Key Highlights of Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand, 2024

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) aims to replace diverse personal laws governing marriage, divorce, adoption, and inheritance across different religions with a single legal framework. This aligns with Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, which encourages a uniform law applicable to all citizens irrespective of religion. The key proposals of the UCC include the prohibition of polygamy, nikah halala, iddat (mandatory waiting period post-divorce for Muslim women), triple talaq, and child marriage. It also seeks to implement a uniform marriage age for girls across all religions and mandates the registration of live-in relationships.

The significance of the UCC lies in its focus on gender equality, ensuring that men and women receive equal treatment in matters of marriage and inheritance. The bill also introduces equal property rights for Muslim women, replacing the current 25% share with full parity. However, the bill provides exemptions to Scheduled Tribes (STs), recognizing their special status and addressing opposition from the tribal population, which constitutes around 3% of Uttarakhand’s demographic.

Despite its progressive elements, the bill raises concerns, particularly regarding the regulation of live-in relationships. It mandates their registration and imposes criminal penalties for non-compliance, granting registrars excessive powers to examine relationships and even refuse registration. Additionally, couples must notify authorities upon termination of their relationship. The introduction of criminal penalties, including imprisonment and fines, further complicates matters, as non-compliance or submission of incorrect information could lead to severe consequences. These provisions infringe upon individual autonomy, eroding the fundamental distinction between marriage and live-in relationships and disregarding the personal freedoms they offer.

A major concern is the imposition of moral policing, as the bill’s stringent regulations may discourage live-in relationships due to fear of legal repercussions. The involvement of law enforcement exacerbates these concerns, making couples vulnerable to harassment. The bill also violates the right to a dignified life under Article 21 by mandating registration within a month, restricting personal choices and intimacy.

To ensure that such regulations align with constitutional principles, a balanced approach must be adopted. Criminalization should be guided by fundamental rights rather than societal morality. Legal precedents, such as Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018), which struck down adultery laws, emphasize that the state should not interfere in private relationships. Similarly, the Supreme Court’s decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) affirms the right to privacy, shielding individuals from undue state intervention. Furthermore, overregulation may disproportionately affect inter-caste and inter-religious couples, who already face societal discrimination and legal challenges.

The right to choose a life partner is a fundamental aspect of human liberty, as recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Women’s autonomy over their bodies and reproductive rights must also be upheld without excessive state interference. Regulations should be assessed using the proportionality test, ensuring they serve a legitimate purpose while balancing state interests with personal freedoms.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand Act, 2024, seeks to establish uniformity in personal laws, its mandatory registration and criminalization of live-in relationships threaten fundamental rights. By erasing the distinction between marriage and live-in relationships, the bill undermines personal autonomy, privacy, and equality. A democratic society must prioritize individual freedoms over excessive legal control, ensuring that laws reflect constitutional values rather than moralistic oversight.