The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill was introduced in the Legislative Assembly of Uttarakhand on February 6, 2024, by Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami. The Bill received assent on March 11, 2024, by President Draupadi Murmu. Following the same, the Bill was implemented on January 27, 2025, making Uttarakhand the first state of Independent India to have a Uniform Civil Code. Excluding the Scheduled Tribes, the Act aims to provide equality for all citizens irrespective of their religion, caste, or gender. The State Government has lived up to one of its major promises made in the assembly elections of 2022, to implement a UCC in the state. Uttarakhand CM Pushkar Singh Dhami posted on X, to announce the implementation of the UCC, reiterating the fulfillment of promises made in 22 assembly elections regarding the implementation of the UCC.
During the drafting of the Indian Constitution, prominent leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar supported the introduction of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC). However, due to opposition from religious conservatives and limited public awareness at the time, the UCC was included in the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) under Article 44 of the Indian Constitution instead of being enacted as a binding law as reported by Manupatra. In 2018, the 21st Law Commission, chaired by Justice Balbir Singh Chauhan, advised that implementing a Uniform Civil Code at that time was neither necessary nor advisable. The Commission went ahead to highlight the importance of maintaining secularism with the nation’s diverse cultural and religious traditions. Further, the commission suggested amending the discriminatory provisions within existing personal laws rather than enforcing a uniform legal framework.
A closer look at the Act reveals various issues that could have severe implications.
Mandatory registration of live–in relationships
Although the UCC has promised to protect women’s rights, critics have argued that provisions such as mandatory registration of live–in relationships does not safeguard women, and instead hampers their freedom and puts them under scrutiny by State and society. The provision results in significant intrusion in an individual’s privacy and autonomy. Part 3 of the Act governs Live–in relationships.
Those who are currently in a live–in relationship or considering the same must provide a statement to the registrar, who will investigate and may request the couple to present further documentation or appear for certification. The registrar has 30 days from the time of the inquiry to either register the relationship and provide a certificate or deny registration and notify the partners in writing. According to the bill, the registrar must also notify the parents or guardians of any partner under the age of 21 and provide the live-in relationship statement to the head of the local police station for record-keeping purposes. The measure imposes fines on individuals who continue living together for longer than a month without providing the necessary declaration.
The UCC Act which was passed by the State Assembly in February 2024, requires couples mandatorily, to register with the government, both while initiating and terminating a live-in relationship. Any failure to register carries a jail term up to six months! This applies to residents of Uttarakhand as well as state residents living elsewhere in India.
The UCC Rules which came into effect on January 2, 2025, provide further measures regarding the application process for live–in relationships. According to the Rules, a 16-page form that needs to be filled, Aadhaar-linked OTP, registration fee, a certificate from a religious leader that the couple is eligible to marry if they so wish, and details of previous relationships — these are among the rules prescribed by the Uttarakhand government for registration of live-in relationships under its Uniform Civil Code.
The Rules mandate that a religious leader or a community head or the official of a religious/community body concerned, must issue a certificate stating that the customs that govern the registrants of the application, permit a marriage between the two individuals willing to live together. Rule 3 (u), which defines a religious leader, states that “in relation to a community means a priest of the place of worship of that community or an office bearer of the religious body pertaining to that community.”
The Rules raise various concerns as the same make it practically impossible for interfaith or inter–caste individuals to be in a live–in relationship. The requirement of religious sanction for two consenting adults to enter a live–in relationship defeats the principle of secularism provided in the Preamble of the Constitution of India.
In what could clearly amount to intrusion on adult persons’ privacy and choice, the Rules require in prescribed format “proof of permissibility of marriage between the registrants if they are within the degrees of prohibited relationship”. Besides, for “proof of previous history of relationship,” the Rules require details of “marital or live-in relationship prior to the onset of the current live-in relationship”. These documents could include final decree of divorce; final decree annulling a marriage; death certificate of a spouse; certificate of terminated live-in relationship. For marriages dissolved under customary religious practices, then proof of such dissolution would be required.
If a judicial magistrate finds an individual guilty, they could be sentenced to up to three months of imprisonment, fined up to Rs 10,000, or both. Additionally, anyone caught submitting incorrect or omitting information during registration faces a three-month imprisonment and a heftier punishment of Rs 25,000. A six-month imprisonment and a fine of Rs 25,000 could be imposed for not submitting the live–in relationship statement after being notified. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that not registering a marriage carries no legal repercussions, while not registering a live-in partnership may result in imprisonment as reported by BBC.
Live–in agreements are usually used as a means to get to know one another before contemplating marriage, if at all. When the seriousness of live–in relationships is equated with marriage, the question of what makes the two different emerges. Is it necessary for a man and a woman to prove they have no romantic relationship if they live together as roommates? Furthermore, are same-sex couples excluded from the definition of a “legal” live-in relationship, or does the provision solely apply to heterosexual couples?
Further, it is concerning that the age restrictions for marriage and live–in relationships differ. An individual can get married at the age of 18 without their parents’ consent, however they would have to wait until 21 for a live–in relationship.
Section 386 of the Act which allows third parties to raise complaints if they believe that a live–in relationship is violative of the provisions of the UCC, has raised various concerns as the same can be misuse, moral policing, and social scrutiny. The provision could result in harassment and unwarranted interference of third parties which could violate the fundamental right to privacy and autonomy of individuals.
Bhuwan Chandra Kapri, Congress MLA from Khatima constituency in Uttarakhand has criticized the Act stating that “When the Supreme Court has validated live-in relationships, how can the State overwrite it by making it mandatory to register?” He further added that, “Imagine the nightmare for women—records creating marital havoc, complaints flying from disgruntled relatives or snooping neighbours. An emboldened Bajrang Dal prying into your private life. Daughters facing marriage hurdles based on these very records. Blackmail, too, can become a weapon.” as reported by Frontline.
The apex court has upheld the legitimacy of live–in relationships in various cases. In the case of Indra Sarma vs V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of relationships and laid down that such relationships should be given protection from social and legal prejudices. Further, right to privacy which has been recognized as a fundamental right in the landmark case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), includes the freedom to make personal choices without unwarranted state interference. The right also covers the privacy of personal relationships, including live-in relationships, where individuals should have the liberty to form relationships without the fear of government or societal surveillance. The provisions regarding live–in relationships in the Act, are in violation of the Supreme Court judgements and violate the fundamental right to privacy of individuals cohabiting in live–in relationships.
Targeting Minorities
The UCC has also faced criticism for its targeting of Muslims and exclusion of the Scheduled Tribes (STs). According to All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen President Asaduddin Owaisi, the UCC is really a “Hindu Code.”
While speaking to Frontline, Owaisi mentioned that “The UCC is not uniform. Firstly, the tribals are kept out of it. If the UCC is so beneficial for society, why should the STs be left out? Secondly, the UCC has not even mentioned the Hindu Undivided Family [HUF], which gives tax benefits to the Hindu community. Hindus and STs have been given exemptions, and the UCC cannot be uniform as long as it does not apply to the majority community.”
The Uttarakhand administration has also come under scrutiny for allegedly utilising the new law to target Muslims who adhere to Sharia law’s customary divorce and polygamy laws, which are now illegal. “We cannot accept any law that is against the Sharia because a Muslim can compromise with anything but Sharia and religion,” stated prominent Muslim organisation Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind.
Proponents claim that by outlawing polygamy, granting sons and daughters equal rights to inherit property, and mandating that divorce proceedings be handled in a civil court, the UCC grants Muslim women the same rights as others.
But according to experts, the law does not question patriarchal norms in Hindu civil law, such as the need that the guardianship of a minor boy or unmarried girl go to the father before going to the mother as reported by Al jazeera.
By eliminating Nikah Halala, Section 30(2) permits remarriage without restrictions. Anyone who compels or coerces someone to adhere to such requirements prior to getting married again is criminally charged under Section 32(iii). Although these provisions seek to advance gender equality, they may make personal law systems more complex.
The dilemma of Inheritance
By introducing its own intestate succession process, the UCC ignores the Class I and II legal heirs that are listed in the Hindu and Muslim personal laws as well as the laws that apply to Christians. A person who passes away without leaving a will will be subject to the UCC (intestate succession) as reported by Economic Times. The code disassociates itself from the customs of major religions like Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism and treats women on an equal basis with males.
1. Impact of UCC on inheritance laws of Hindus
The distinction between self-acquired and inherited property under Hindu law is eliminated by the UCC. Accordingly, each legitimate heir will be entitled to ancestral property in the same way that they are to self-acquired property.
In the event of intestate succession, the UCC elevates both parents—the mother and the father—as Class-I heirs. This differs from the Hindu Succession Act, which states that if the deceased was a Hindu male, the father is listed among the Class-II heirs. In addition, under the Hindu Succession Act, class I heirs are not the same for males and females, but under the UCC, they are. The Hindu Succession Act states that a married Hindu woman’s class I heirs do not include her own parents, while a Hindu man’s class I heirs include his mother but not his father.
2. Impact of UCC on inheritance laws of Muslims
The principle of fixed shares governs inheritance rights in Muslim law on intestate succession, which frequently leads to an unfair distribution that disproportionately benefits male heirs. UCC, on the other hand, permits the division of property freely without having to follow any set proportions imposed by Islamic law because there are no fixed shares. In the event of an intestate succession, the UCC grants Muslim women the same property rights as Muslim men.
Regarding the estate of a Muslim who passes away intestate, the UCC specifies general norms of succession. Relatives (of the deceased) listed in Classes I and II of Schedule 2 of the code would be subject to these regulations. Because of this deviation from Islamic law, the fixed-shares norms will not be rigorously followed in inheritance.
3. Impact of UCC on inheritance laws of Christians
Widows are entitled to one-third of the deceased’s property under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which covers Christians. Other lineal descendants are given the remaining two-thirds. The widow would receive half of the property if there were no lineal descendants. If there are no relatives, the widow would get the whole estate. On the other hand, the UCC states that all class I heirs will get equal shares in property and other assets and classifies a widow as a Class-1 heir.
Unless there are no lineal descendants, the deceased’s parents are not entitled to any portion of the property under the Indian Succession Act. However, parents are granted Class-1 legal heir status under the UCC. They each receive a share, with the other parent receiving the entire share in the event of one parent’s death.
While drastic changes have been made with regards to intestate succession for Muslims and Christians, it can be observed that the only changes made for intestate succession for Hindus is the amendment of the list of Class I and Class II heirs. The law makes a complete overhaul of the procedure for intestate succession while making little to no change for Hindus which has become an issue of criticism.
The Hindu Undivided Family
Regarding Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs), which have potentially significant financial ramifications, the UCC remains silent. HUFs, which are considered as separate entities for the purposes of income tax computation, may be established by joint Hindu families. People routinely lower their personal taxable income by directing their individual salaries to HUFs established in conjunction with other family members. In addition to the enormous hypothetical income loss to the exchequer, it has long been known that HUFs are essentially a tax evasion scheme.
Additionally, only members of the Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and Jains communities, to whom Hindu family law applies, are able to use this device, and not the members of other religious communities. It is clearly prejudiced in this regard. At the expense of the nation’s revenue, the Law Commission stated bluntly in 2018 that “it is high time that it is understood that justifying this institution [coparcenaries/HUFs] on the basis of deep-rooted sentiments may not be judicious,” as reported by The Print.
Conclusion
Economically speaking, migratory trends may be impacted by state-led UCC models. Similar to how Colorado’s legalisation of marijuana raised housing costs, people would move to places with laxer regulations. Private life rules, such as those pertaining to relationships, may have a substantial effect on labour mobility, corporate concentration, and state demographics.
There are several concerns regarding the impact of UCC on religious freedom, personal autonomy, and privacy. While the UCC claims to promote gender justice and equality, critics argue that it infringes on individual rights, especially with provisions like mandatory live-in relationship registrations and targeting of minorities. Additionally, the exclusion of certain groups and complexities in inheritance laws highlight the challenges of harmonizing diverse legal systems.
(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this legal resource has been worked on by Yukta Adha)
Related:
Uttarakhand’s UCC seen through a Muslim women’s political perspective
Destroying the basic standards of legislation- the Uttarakhand Model of UCC