The president of India, Draupadi Murmu, has granted assent to the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (hereinafter referred to as UCC) Bill on 11th March 2024 under Article 201 of the constitution of India, and the Act became operational on 27th January 2025. The official website of the act quotes, “It is a landmark regulation aimed at promoting equality, justice, and social harmony under a common law,” but does this seem from the section that contains this act? The answer would be incongruous as many of the provisions of this act were contrary to the fundamental rights and other existing laws that guarantee basic human rights to the citizens of India. Let’s examine some of the draconian clauses, which are authoritarian in more than one aspect, as they infringe on the basic fundamental and human rights of the citizens of India.
Intrusion into the right to privacy
Section 20, clause (1) of the rules, which deals with access to information, states that all the collected data shall be accessible openly in a particular area, and the personal information, such as religion, caste, past relations, and number of children, among others, will be accessible, which is an intrusion upon the privacy of an individual and violates the fundamental right of Article 21, whose most important facet is the Right to Privacy, of the Indian Constitution as established in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy V. Union of India. Such a provision not only violates the basic right to privacy but is also inconsistent with Section 8, which directs the data depository to protect personal data from breach, among other provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023. These sections, whereby the disclosure of personal data has been made mandatory, will lead to social stigma, backlash, and discrimination, particularly in the case of interfaith marriage.
Ultra vires state power.
Various provisions of the Act, including Section 48, provide authority to the state government to enact rules for different matters, including marriage proof documents and divorce registration, among others. Section 389 authorizes the state govt. to make rules related to the Maintenance and registration process, among others, and 391 of the Act empowers the state govt. to modify and impose additional rules and regulations regarding the personal law is contrary to the provision of the law of the land as personal law falls in the concurrent list of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution which means a list of the subject where both Central Govt. and State Govt. can make a rule to govern it. However, if there is conflict in the same, the union law will prevail. Further, Article 245 of the Indian Constitution quotes the extent of law made by the parliament and by the legislature of the state. The article further reads that a law enacted by the state legislature will have the jurisdiction of the whole or any part of the state. The provisions of the act, while encroaching on the domain of the concurrent list, violate the principle of the Constitution of India and various rulings of the judiciary. One such ruling was the State of Karnataka V. Union of India, where the Apex Court ruled that the state government cannot legislate in the domain conflicting with national laws. Further, in the case of Forum for people’s collective efforts V. State of West Bengal, the Apex Court has adjudged that union law will supersede the state’s legislature-enacted law on the same subject matter. These sections where state legislatures have arbitrarily intervened in the domain of the union government have the potential to increase legal uncertainty regarding inheritance and religious autonomy.
Encroachment on the freedom of religion
The law also encroaches on the fundamental right of Article 25, which provides the freedom to profess the religion among others, as through different sections, it encroaches on the domain of religious communities, and one such section is 2, which deals with the conditions with the non-applicability of the rules to scheduled tribes but overrides personal laws of other religious communities. Another section is 4, which talks about the conditions for marriage. Clause IV of Section 4 states that parties that are in a prohibited degree of relationship cannot marry with some exceptions, which selectively target and disregard the minority, especially the Muslims and Parsis. Hence, violating not only fundamental rights provided by the constitution but also the Apex Court verdict of Shayara Bano V. Union of India, where the autonomy for personal laws was advocated.
Inconsistent with existing national and international regulation
The act was not only contradictory to the existing national law but also was in contravention of international territory, of which India is a signatory. Let’s discuss the existing Pan-India laws that are being violated by the enactment of this Act. Section 6 mandates the compulsory registration of marriage, ignoring the cultural and religious diversity of the nation and violating the rights to equality established in Navtej Singh Johar V. Union of India, where the Apex Court has ruled against the law that imposes “one-size-fits-all standards.”. On the other hand, if we look into international law, where India is also a signatory, we will see the disregard made by this law. Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which India is a signatory nation, provides the right to freedom of religion, among others, and as far as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women is concerned, its Article 2, Clause (f) advocates the elimination of discriminatory law, and Article 5, Clause (a) requires the state to take measures to eliminate the discriminatory law, among other laws.
Compromising women’s rights and autonomy
The act also restricts women from claiming their basic rights, as Section 19 of the act denies the maintenance right to the woman in a live-in relationship unless she provides proof of cohabitation in a government-approved format. This resulted in the violation of not only basic rights but also the various pronouncements of the Apex Court, one of which was Indira Sarma V. V.K.V. Sarma, where the court recognized the maintenance rights of the live-in partners. Such encroaching policy upon women’s basic rights will result in the abandonment of women even after long-term relationships and will impair the financial security of such women.
Conclusion
The Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand, 2025, presents a regulation that is deeply concerning as it encroaches on various domains of the people’s rights, which is not only provided by the law of the land (Constitution of India) but also provided by the international covenant. Further, it also poses a threat to the federal structure of the Indian democracy by overriding the domain of the central government. The act also places some groups, particularly minorities and women, into the secondary stage. With all these major concerns, it can be concluded that the act also violates the indispensable principle of the Preamble of the Indian Constitution, which ensures justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity to all its citizens, among others.
Author Bio
I found it useful 🙂