Personal & political: Uttarakhand's UCC should have been more accommodating

Uttarakhand on Monday formally notified the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), entering the history books as the first Indian state to do so after Independence. Goa was allowed to follow its UCC of the colonial period when it became part of India in 1961. Launching the UCC portal and issuing a notification, Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami said his administration’s objective was to “end discrimination”. Mr Dhami has fulfilled a long-standing national project of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Uttarakhand may be a test case for other BJP-ruled states. Prima facie, the need for a progressive UCC that does away with the myriad religious personal laws, which govern such consequential matters as marriage, divorce, succession rights, and inheritance, is critical in a modern country. The question is whether Uttarakhand’s UCC can be called progressive.

 

In some respects, the Code recommends itself. Among other things, it has standardised the minimum age for marriage, equalised property inheritance laws across genders, and given children of live-in relationships the same legal rights as those born to married couples. By doing away with such Islamic practices as Iddat and Nikah Halala, both egregious infringements on women’s rights, the UCC can claim to promote women’s empowerment. In that sense, the complaints from the arbiters of the Muslim Personal Law Board about the UCC may be considered untenable. Nonetheless, the uneasiness of the Muslim community in the state is understandable on account of the religious polarisation that has translated into growing harassment by majoritarian-minded locals. Again, registering a marriage or divorce is unexceptionable in principle but declaring these details on a portal has its own perils, especially for inter-faith couples. Infamous “love jihad” incidents such as the one in Uttarkashi in 2023, when right-wing groups accused Muslim men of preying on Hindu women, since found to be false, have roiled social relations in the state.  

 

But perhaps no element of Uttarakhand’s UCC has attracted more controversy than the compulsory registration of live-in relationships — including for people of Uttarakhand living outside the state. The process here is menacing. The couple must register with a registrar, who will verify their details, including whether either partner has been married, is in another live-in relationship, or is a minor. The registrar then issues a certificate, which must be forwarded to the police station of the relevant jurisdiction. The discretionary power of a faceless state bureaucrat to legally intrude into the private decisions and personal morality of Indian citizens is patriarchal, unwarranted, and unjustified, and is likely to attract legal appeals. In particular, it impinges on the choices of people, especially women, who may prefer a live-in relationship with its non-commercial implications (no dowry, for instance) and easier exit route than a marriage. Again, the registration route could be hazardous to the personal safety of inter-faith live-ins. This law is also out of step with the future. Young people entering the professional workforce today are increasingly experimenting with the flexibility of a range of nonconventional relationships outside the institutions of the community-sanctioned arranged marriage. Bringing them within the purview of the patriarchal morality of the state is likely to drive them away. The loser, ultimately, will be Uttarakhand.