On 7 February 2024, guided by Article 44 of the Constitution, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttarakhand passed the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Act, 2024, becoming the first State in India to enact a Uniform Civil Code. The Act claimed to establish a uniform and equal set of rules on personal status law, including marriage, divorce, succession, and inheritance, that applied to all citizens of the State irrespective of religion. However, according to section 2 of the code, the law would not apply to Scheduled Tribes of the State.                                                                                                                                                            

Background

• In 2022, the Government of Uttarakhand constituted a five-member Expert Committee, headed by former Supreme Court Judge Ranjana Prakash Desai, to study and draft a UCC law for the State.
• On 2 February 2024, after receiving public comments, the Committee submitted its report to the Chief Minister.
• On 4 February 2024, the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister approved the Committee’s Report.
• On February 7, 2024, the Legislative Assembly of the State of Uttarakhand passed the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill.
• On 13 March 2024, the Bill was granted assent by the President, making it into an Act. 
• Article 44 of the Constitution of India provided that the State shall endeavour to implement a Uniform Civil Code.
• Key provisions

The Act was divided into four parts: Part 1 – Marriage and Divorce; Part 2 – Succession, divided into intestate and testamentary succession; Part 3 – Live-In Relationship; and Part 4 – Miscellaneous. Each part was subdivided further into chapters. Some of the major features included:

• Marriage and Divorce: Section 4 addressed conditions of marriage.

1. Minimum Marriageable Age: Set a common minimum marriageable age for all genders (18 years for women and 21 years for men), aligned with existing national legislation.
2. Registration of Marriages: Mandated compulsory registration of all marriages within 60 days, with the designated authorities, to ensure legal recognition and transparency.

• Registration of Divorce: The Act made compulsory the registration of not just marriage but also divorce. Divorces, thus, were to be legalised not only through a Court decree but were also to be simultaneously registered. The Act set out a timeframe to be applied by parties where a decree of divorce already existed, and recommended penal provisions for failure to do so.

1. Grounds for Divorce: Outlined specific grounds for obtaining divorce applicable to all communities, addressing issues like cruelty, adultery, desertion, and mental illness.

Under section 25, both parties were granted an equal right to petition the Court to dissolve the marriage through a decree of divorce, and divorce could occur only through Court proceedings. Section 29 emphasised that marriages could be dissolved only under the provisions of the Code, notwithstanding any usage, custom, tradition or personal law of any party to the marriage.

1. Alimony and Maintenance: Provided provisions for spousal and child maintenance after divorce, ensuring financial support and upholding the welfare of dependents.

• Inheritance and Succession: The Code also regulated intestate succession and testamentary succession and wills.

1. Equal Rights: Granted equal inheritance rights for sons and daughters and abolished the distinction between ancestral and self-acquired property. This promoted gender equality and ensured fair distribution of inherited assets.
2. Succession Rules: Established a common set of rules for inheritance based on relationship to the deceased, regardless of religious affiliation. This simplified the legal process and avoided complexities arising from diverse personal laws.

It divided intestate succession into Class 1 and Class 2 heirs and listed them in Schedule 2 of the law. Class 1 heirs were the immediate family members of the deceased, including spouse, children, parents, and spouses of predeceased children, who were given preference in the distribution of shares. In the absence of Class 1 heirs, shares were distributed to Class 2 heirs, and then to other relatives. In the absence of heirs, the Government took over the estate, subject to obligations and liabilities to which an heir would have been subject.

• Live-in Relationships: The Code recognized live-in relationships, which were defined as a relationship in the nature of marriage between a man and a woman who cohabit in a shared household.

1. Registration: Section 378 of the Act made it obligatory for partners in a live-in relationship, whether residents of the State or not, to submit a statement of live-in relationship to the Jurisdictional Registrar. The law also required Uttarakhand residents who were staying in a live-in relationship outside the State to submit such a statement before the Registrar within whose jurisdiction such residents ordinarily resided. Registration was required to be done within a month, granting legal recognition and protecting the rights of individuals in such partnerships.

Section 380 of the Act, however, denied the right to register a live-in relationship where:

• Partners were within prohibited degrees.
• One of the partners was married or involved in another live-in relationship.
• One of the partners was a minor.
• Where the consent of one partner was vitiated.

1. Power of Registrar: Section 381 of the Act set out the elaborate procedure for the compulsory registration of the live-in relationship. The Registrar was empowered to conduct a summary inquiry to satisfy himself/herself as to whether the couple qualified for registration.

Section 381(3) permitted the Registrar to not only summon the couple but also other persons in respect of the inquiry. After inquiry, within 30 days, the Registrar could enter the names in the register or refuse to register the same.

• Termination of Live-In Relationship: Section 384 of the Act provided that the couple jointly or unilaterally could terminate the live-in relationship and submit a statement of termination to the Registrar.

1. Consequence of Refusal to Register: Section 387 of the Act made it a criminal offence to stay in a live-in relationship for more than one month without submitting a statement to the Registrar. Thus, if the parties failed to register the relationship, they could face criminal prosecution.
2. Rights of Children of Live-In Relationships: Section 379 of the Act recognized the rights of children born to partners in registered live-in relationships, ensuring their access to inheritance, maintenance, and other legal benefits.
3. Maintenance for Deserted Partners: Section 388 of the Act provided provisions for maintenance to partners who were deserted in live-in relationships, safeguarding their financial security and addressing potential exploitation.

• Additional Provisions:

1. Prohibition of Polygamy: One of the conditions of marriage was that neither party had a spouse living at the time of the marriage. Thus, the Act banned the practice of polygamy for all individuals, promoting monogamy and gender equality.
2. Child Marriage Ban: Reiterated the existing national ban on child marriage, protecting children from harmful traditional practices.

• Jurisdiction of Courts: Determined the jurisdiction of Courts in matters related to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and maintenance under the UCC.
• Exemptions: The Act exempted members of Scheduled Tribes from its provisions, allowing them to continue following their customary laws in personal matters.

Criticisms

The Act faced strong backlash from various sections, some of which could be broadly summarised as:

1. Political Motives and Rushed Passage: Opposition parties and critics accused the Government of pushing the Act for political gains ahead of national elections. They argued that the Act should have undergone a thorough review by a select committee before being brought to a final vote.
2. Religious Minority Concerns: Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, a prominent Muslim organisation, expressed strong opposition, stating that they could not accept any law that contradicted Sharia (Islamic law). They emphasised that Sharia was non-negotiable for Muslims, and any attempt to legislate against it was seen as unacceptable.

Furthermore, the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen argued that the Act imposed a Hindu code on all citizens, neglecting the diverse personal laws practised by different communities. It questioned the constitutionality of the Act, claiming it violated Articles 25 and 29 of the Constitution, which guaranteed freedom of religion and cultural rights.

3. Homogenising Traditions: The Act also raised concerns regarding its potential to homogenise the diverse traditions present in the State and undermine social harmony, by making a uniform law applicable to all. Critics argued that the Act infringed on the religious and cultural rights of minorities, particularly regarding marriage, inheritance, and personal laws.
4. Applicability and Jurisdiction Issues: There were concerns raised about the broad applicability of the Act beyond Uttarakhand, and its impact on individuals who did not have domicile in the State.

A resident was defined by the Act as :

• Person eligible for permanent residency
• Permanent employee of the State government or its undertakings
• Permanent employee of the Central government employed within the State
• Resident of the State for not less than one year
• Beneficiary of a State scheme or a Central scheme applicable to the State.

Thus, a resident of Delhi, if permanently employed by the Uttarakhand Bhawan in the national capital, would, by this definition, be deemed a resident and have the Act made applicable to them even if they had never set foot in the State. Critics argued that such legislation should be more localised or at least respect regional variations and customs, rather than imposing uniform regulations that may not be suitable or acceptable across different cultural contexts.

5. No Provisions for Permanent Alimony: In the area of marriage and divorce, there was one notable omission. The progressive changes that have taken place globally to provide for matrimonial settlements by dividing equally the resources of the spouses, held either jointly after marriage or purchased and held separately after marriage, were not addressed by this law. Meaning that there was no specific provision for permanent alimony in case of a divorce.
6. Regulating Consensual Relationships: A prevalent criticism of the Act was the mandatory requirement of registration of a live-in relationship and its criminalisation, if certain conditions were not complied with. With this mandate, the law conferred disproportionate power on the State to penalise consensual relations and violate individual autonomy. This part of the Act was criticised for:
7. Giving Overriding Powers to the Registrars – The Act required live-in partners to submit a ‘statement’ to the Registrar concerned. The Registrar had the powers to examine the statement and conduct an inquiry into the relationship. Moreover, partners could be required to make a personal appearance and the Registrar could also refuse to register the relationship. Termination of a relationship also required notice to be submitted.
8. Imposition of Criminal Penalty – Another unwanted feature of the Act was the criminal penalty – imprisonment or fine (or both) – if the statement was not filed. The couple would be penalised for the submission of false information. The Registrar would inform the details of the live-in relations to the police station whose jurisdiction governed the couple.
9. Infringing on Individual Autonomy – The Act ignored the foundational reason for a live-in relationship, which was that it lacked the formal structure and obligations of a marriage. Those who were living together, therefore, enjoyed autonomy in their consensual partnerships, which a regulated marriage did not. Erasing this much-needed distinction between these institutions was not justiciable.
10. Excessive Moral Policing – In a society that thrived on moral policing of young couples, the Act, unsurprisingly, imposed a chilling effect on live-in partners and implicitly discouraged such relationships. The involvement of the police accelerated this concern. Couples were wary of entering into genuine relationships since a lack of compliance not only invited civil consequences, as regulatory laws routinely required, but also criminal ones.

Violation of the Right to a Dignified Life – The one-month limit for registration of the live-in relationship also restrained intimacy in the most direct of ways. It infringed on free decision-making and an expression of feelings, protected under Article 21, which lays stress on the right to a dignified life. Individuals were constrained by the provisions of the Act while entering into live-in relationships, which impeded the ability to make the deepest personal. read more information CLICK HERE