Equal rights

Uttarakhand's UCC needed more thought

The state of Uttarakhand has offered an indication of the sort of civil society the Bharatiya Janata Party visualises with the passage of its Uniform Civil Code on Wednesday. The state became the first since Independence to pass a common law on marriage, divorce, property inheritance, and live-in relationships, cutting across religious personal laws (although Scheduled Tribes are exempt). In intent, the new law cannot be faulted in strengthening the rights of women. For instance, it has standardised the minimum marriageable age for women, outlawed divorce and remarriage of divorced spouses through extra-judicial modes (including such practices as nikah halala), prohibited polygamy, and aims to provide equal inheritance rights for both sexes. Its weaknesses lie in confusion over its applicability vis-à-vis national laws that already exist on the subject, such as the Hindu Marriage Act, succession laws, and so on, disregard for the rights of the states’ LGBTQIA+ citizens and, most egregiously, intrusive impositions on live-in relationships.
 

Leaders of the Muslim community have protested over the precedence of the UCC over personal law and the Hindu community may seek clarity on the concept of coparcenary laws. Under the traditional joint family system this law enables male and female lineal descendants up to the third generation to co-own ancestral property that cannot be sold or willed by any single coparcener. The state’s new law does not distinguish between ancestral or self-acquired property for Hindus and applies the same Western-style succession laws to all the state’s citizens. It also does not mention the concept of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), which is treated as a separate entity under the Income Tax Act.
 

These issues may become clearer once the rules are gazetted. But the provision that is likely to attract serious legal challenges concerns the compulsory registration of live-in relationships (that too, only between a man and woman). Under the new law, live-in couples have to submit a statement to a registrar, who must conduct an enquiry within 30 days, forward the statement to the local police, and inform the parents if the couple concerned are under 21 years. The registrar can decline to register the statement for specified reasons (such as one of the applicants being married or a minor). Failure to submit a statement within a month can attract a fine of up to ~10,000 and/or three months’ imprisonment. The progressive element of this provision is that it seeks to protect women in such relationships against domestic violence and enables a child of live-in partners to inherit property. These provisions exist under federal laws including the Domestic Violence Act, however. This law, then, amounts to unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and liberty of citizens, more so when the Supreme Court has ruled that live-in relationships are neither a crime nor a sin. It has urged Parliament to pass laws to protect such unions. In this respect, it is a pity that Uttarakhand did not draw on Goa’s liberal pre-Independence civil code. 
 

In fact, the criminalisation of various violations is another notable element of this law, contradicting the spirit of the Centre’s recent move to decriminalise legislation. Apart from failure to register live-in relationships, the law criminalises extra-judicial divorce and remarriage with imprisonment, fines, or both. The new law surely needed more thought.