UNIFORM CIVIL CODE IN UTTARAKHAND: A STEP FORWARD OR A BACKWARD BLOW TO LIVE-IN COUPLES?

Uttarakhand became the first state in independent India to implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), which aims to standardize personal laws previ­ously governed by different religious codes and eliminate discrimination based on caste, gender, or religion. This code further includes a statutory framework related to live-in relationships, with the Uttarakhand chief minister stating that, among other things, the government aims to protect the interests of women in live-in relation­ships and the children born out of such relationships. However, the act attracted controversy due to the insertion of various provisions under Part III of the code, which undermine the privacy and autonomy of the individual. It further raises the ques­tion of whether the government's intent manifests itself in the code or if it is just a way for modern policing. To answer this question, we must go through the code and rules regulating the same.

First, the law mandates that every live-in partner residing in Uttara­khand—regardless of their permanent residence—and permanent residents of Uttarakhand staying outside the state's territory, must register their live-in rela­tionship with the local registrar. If they fail to submit their registration statement, the registrar can issue a notice either on their own motion or upon receiving a complaint from any individual. Failure to do so within 30 days of such notice can result in imprisonment and a fine. This provision tends to institutionalize social surveillance, allowing a third party to complain if one fails to register their live-in relationship. The counsel for the petitioner challenging the UCC's manda­tory registration provisions has pointed out before the High Court of Uttara­khand that this provision shall be "in­stitutionalizing gossip" by granting le­gal weight to unverified complaints.

Another concerning provision under one of the registrar's duties is that if the registrar suspects a registration violat­ing Section 380 (conditions to enter into a live-in relationship) or if the contents of the statement of the live-in relation­ship are incorrect or suspicious, the reg­istrar shall inform the officer-in-charge of the local police station for appropriate action. Furthermore, records of such registrations have to be kept in both the registrar's office and the local police station. A critical issue arises here re­garding data privacy because the code remains silent on whether these records will be accessible to the public.

Given that registers for marriage, di­vorce, and appeals are explicitly open for public inspection under Section 15 (Part I) of the code, it is reasonable to infer that live-in relationship records might also be publicly accessible. This concern is further validated by statements from leaders of various organizations, who claimed that they had access to these details and were actively "checking" for interfaith couples in the state. It is not alien to Indian society that interfaith and inter-caste couples often face harassment and violence—even within court prem­ises—while registering their marriage. Outside courts, the situation is even more dire, with couples facing social ostracisa­tion, intimidation, and, in extreme cases, honour killings. Poor implementation of the law could inadvertently worsen the vulnerability of couples.

Further, one of the conditions speci­fied under Section 380 is that neither of the partners should be below the age of minority. Section 3(1)(g) of the act de­fines a "minor" as anyone below 18 years of age. Interestingly, the age of marriage under the same act is 21 years for men and 18 years for women. Nevertheless, under Part III—which regulates live-in relationships—if either of the partners is less than 21 years of age, the registrar has to inform the parents/guardians of such partners. The requirement to notify parents extends even to cases where a relationship is terminated. So, as per the code, an 18-year-old woman is deemed to be legally mature enough to enter into the institution of marriage, yet she re­quires parental oversight to enter into a live-in relationship. This provision sub­tly raises the effective eligibility age for women to enter into live-in relationships to 21, undermining the autonomy to which an individual should be entitled.

Beyond these provisions, several vague and loosely defined regulations in the act can be weaponised against all couples, especially interfaith and inter­caste couples. Thereby, instead of ensur­ing protection, these provisions might further fuel moral policing and embold­en vigilante groups, deteriorating the already dire situation for couples.

Overall, enacting the UCC and regu­lating such relationships is a progressive step; however, given the prevailing social reluctance to accept live-in relationships, these provisions risk worsening the situa­tion rather than improving it. Therefore, there is a need for the state government to reassess these provisions and adopt a more couple-centric approach that ensures the couple's privacy and their utmost safety in our society.

NOTE ~ A version of this article was originally published in the Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. 60, Issue No. 16, dated 19 April 2025, under the title "Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand."
Author: Basant Kumar Gupta, LL.B Student, Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Co-Author: Dr. Gaurav Dimri, Assistant Professor, Graphic Era Deemed to be University, Dehradun
The original article can be accessed at: [https://www.epw.in/journal/2025/16/letters/uniform-civil-code-uttarakhand.html]