By P.K.Balachandran/Sunday Observer

Colombo, February 2: A day after India grandly celebrated the 75 th. Republic Day on January 26, commemorating the coming into operation of its democratic Constitution, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled North Indian State of Uttarakhand implemented the controversial Uniform Civil Code (UCC).

The UCC aims to replace a variety of laws on marriage, divorce and inheritance which currently exist in India and varying from State to State. However, the Uttrakhand UCC (or UUCC for short) exempts tribal communities from the law as these have their own community laws. All other religious and social groups have to abide by it.

It was way back in February 2024, that the Uttarakhand State Assembly had passed the law, but it was given effect to only on January 27, 2025 given its controversial nature.

Interestingly, for the first time in India, the UUCC regulates live-in relationships too, apart from marriage and divorce.

Muslim Opposition

Muslim organizations like the Jamaat-i-Ulema-i- Hind, have vowed to challenge the UUCC in court on the grounds that Muslims have a constitutional right to practice their own Islamic civil code. Other communities or caste groups also have their own ancient codes, but these (largely Hindu) communities are unlikely to challenge the UCC as they have more or less modernized their community laws and are ideologically ready to accept the UCC.

Uttarakhand’s Chief Minister, Pushkar Singh Dhami, said that the State’s UCC would bring about social “equality” and “unity” among religions.  “This code is not against any sect or religion. Through this, a way has been found to get rid of evil practices in the society,” Dhami, a BJP leader, claimed.

Sure, bringing about a Uniform Civil Code was one of the Directive Principles enshrined in the 1950 Indian Constitution. But it was a “desire” and not a “justiciable right”. Most Indian political parties were reluctant to interfere in the myriad personal/community/or religious laws of Indians. But the avowedly Hindu parties had been having the UCC as a major part of their election manifestos from the earlier years of independence. Therefore, it was no surprise that it was a BJP government, albeit a government of a small State, which chose to enact an UCC first.

Supporters of the UUCC point out that it gives Muslim women the same rights as others get by outlawing polygamy, setting equal property inheritance rights for sons and daughters, and requiring divorce processes to take place before a civil court and not before unqualified Islamic judges called Qazis.

Muslim leaders accuse the BJP of trying to push through an agenda to impose what they say is effectively a “Hindu code” disguised as an UCC and in brazen violation of the Constitution. The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, India’s largest socio-religious Muslim organisation, said it will be challenging it in both the Uttarkhand High Court and the Supreme Court of India.

Asma Zehra, president of the All India Muslim Women Association, told the AFP that the law is “an attack on Muslim identity” and added that the law is a “manifestation of Islamophobia.”

Law Commission

The Indian Law Commission has been against the UCC. In 2018 it had said that a unified nation does not necessarily need to have “uniformity.” Its other observations are: cultural diversity cannot be compromised to establish uniformity; uniformity imposed by the UCC could itself become a threat to the territorial integrity of the nation; diversity, both religious and regional; and should not get subsumed under the louder voice of the majority.

However, the commission added that patently discriminatory practices within a religious community should not be hidden behind “ faith” to gain legitimacy. Efforts should be made to reconcile India’s diversity with universal human rights principles. The commission also called for the codification of various religious or social laws to help bring to light prejudices and stereotypes in all religions with the aim of changing them in the light of the fundamental rights stated in the Constitution. As of 2023, the Law Commission was gathering data on the UCC.

Live-in Relationships

Live-in relationships are not common in India, existing only in metropolitan cities like Mumbai and New Delhi. But if a very traditional State like Uttarakhand is trying to regulate live-in relationship, it means that there is a broader agenda, critics say.  

According to the Congress party’s spokesman, Abhishek Singhvi, the UUCC is but a “pilot project” to test out the ground situation before an all-India act is passed by the Indian parliament as per the plan of the Modi government.

Historians and sociologists also wonder whether live-in relationships are really “un-Indian”. Ancient India had the “Gandharva vivah” which was based on the mutual agreement of the couple, devoid of rituals, witnesses, or even family participation. It transcended caste, creed or tradition. In the past, the Namboodiri-Nair marriage in Kerala was Sambandam, a “non-residential marriage” where the couple lived separately in their respective homes. The Tamils marry first cousins, banned in North India. The Hindu right wing proponents of the UCC does not seem to be well-schooled in India’s traditional diverse forms of marriage. 

UUCC’s Stringent Provisions

The Uttarakhand UCC makes it mandatory for heterosexual live-in couples to register with the local authorities or else face a three-month jail term or a fine. Live-in couples, both existing and new, must register their partners’ names, proof of age, nationality, religion, previous relationship status, and the phone number into a portal. Compulsory video recordings of witnesses in cases of testamentary succession and photos and Aadhaar (Identity Card details) are a must. 

But all these violate both earlier court rulings and the Indian Constitution.  Senior lawyer Geet Luthra told AFP: “It is absolutely contrary to the right to privacy and personal autonomy. The State should not enter the realm of what citizens do consensually.”

Under the UUCC, anybody can complain about a couple living together. A citizen lodging a complaint should get registered in the portal with all details about himself. To check misinformation a sub-registrar is tasked with verification of complaints.

There are two types of registration for live-in relationships – one for partners living in Uttarakhand and another for the State’s natives outside the territory, but within India. An Uttarakhand native in a live-in relationship in  Mumbai requires to register it along with the partner. They should upload their photos and a declaration too. Children born in such relationships must be registered within seven days of their birth certificates being issued.

For testamentary succession, the declarant must give details and Aadhaar (Identity Card) information — both his and that of heirs and witnesses. Additionally, rules require two witnesses to upload a recording of their reading out the succession declaration.

Section 381 of the UUCC empowers the Registrar to conduct an “enquiry” to check if the relationship between the couple is not a “prohibited” one (under age for example). A 30-day time is given for the State authority to enter the statement in a register and issue the couple a “registration certificate” which clears them to enter into a live-in relationship. A similar exercise is undertaken if the partner or both want to “terminate” the live-in relationship.

Court Rulings  

In a judgment in support of same sex relationships (Supriyo versus Union of India) former Chief Justice of India D.V.Chnandrachud had said that the right to “intimate associations” would come within the ambit of free speech and expression enshrined as a fundamental right under Article 19 (c) of the Constitution. He observed that freedom of speech and expression was not limited to expressive words and included other forms of expression like sexual identity, choice of partner and the expression of sexual desire to a consenting party.

“The freedom to choose a partner and the freedom to enjoy their society, which are essential components of the right to enter into a union (and the freedom of intimate association), would be rendered otiose (useless) if the relationship were to be discriminated against,” Chandrachud wrote.

He noted that courts have traditionally not permitted the State to interfere with or regulate certain kinds of personal relationships. “One of the prominent ideas embraced by the freedom of intimate association is the opportunity it affords to enjoy the society of the other person who is a part of the relationship and the ability to choose to form and maintain such a relationship,” Chandrachud observed.

Live-in relationships are not prohibited in Indian law. In fact, the Supreme Court, in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, had held that live-in relationships come within the ambit of under Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

The Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court had highlighted the possibility of violence against live-in couples, given the opposition to inter-caste/inter-religious marriages in India. Live-in regulations  introduce the unwanted concept of “parental consent” into consensual adult intimacy.  

There is also a glaring anomaly. On the one hand, as per law, an 18 year-old-woman in Uttarakhand can get married without informing her parents, but under the UUCC, she cannot choose to live with her partner without telling her parents first!  

“This provision is a reflection of a demand from many conservative quarters to curb inter-caste and inter-religious marriages, along with limiting the agency of women,” an expert is quoted as saying.

END