The Tightrope of Autonomy: Uttarakhand’s UCC Bill Dilemma


The recently passed Uniform Civil Code (UCC) of Uttarakhand Bill, 2024, by the Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly aims to streamline laws related to marriage and property inheritance. Pending only the President’s assent, this bill is poised to become enforceable legislation. However, it introduces a contentious provision regarding the mandatory registration of live-in relationships. Under certain conditions, failure to comply with this requirement could lead to criminal charges. This aspect of the bill raises concerns not only about individual freedom but also about the extent of the state’s intervention in regulating personal relationships.

Uniform Civil Code in India ?

Definition

  • Mentioned in Article 44 of the Constitution as part of the Directive Principles of State Policy.
  • Aims to establish a uniform set of laws governing personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption for all citizens across India.

Constitutional Provisions

  • Left to the discretion of the government for implementation.
  • Only implemented in Goa, following the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867.

Supreme Court’s View

  • 1985: Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum Case called for its implementation, terming Article 44 a “dead letter”.
  • 1995: Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India reiterated the demand for a UCC.
  • 2019: Jose Paulo Coutinho v. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira Case praised Goa as a model where the UCC is applied to all, regardless of religion.

Law Commission’s Perspective

  • 2018: The 21st Law Commission, headed by Justice Balbir Singh Chauhan, suggested in a consultation paper that a UCC is neither necessary nor desirable at the current stage.

Background

  • Article 162 of the Indian Constitution grants executive power to states in areas where the State Legislature can make laws.
  • Entry 5 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule allows states to form committees for implementing the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) without violating the Constitution.

Reservation Power of Governors:

  • Governors can reserve bills for the President’s consideration if they endanger the state high court’s position or if they:
    • Violate the Constitution
    • Oppose the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)
    • Contravene the national interest
    • Are of grave national importance
    • Involve compulsory acquisition of property under Article 31A of the Constitution.

Reason for Sending the Bill for President’s Approval:

  • The bill in question supersedes several national laws like the Special Marriages Act, 1954, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Shariat Act, 1937.
  • Hence, it was sent for the President’s approval before implementation to ensure conformity with national legal frameworks.

How Uttarakhand’s UCC Bill, 2024, Reshapes Legal Landscape: A Comprehensive Overview

Introduction:

  • The Uttarakhand government has proposed a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill in 2024.
  • The UCC aims to create a single set of personal laws for all citizens, irrespective of their religion, focusing on marriage, divorce, adoption, and inheritance.

Key Proposals:

  • Prohibition of practices like polygamy, triple talaq, nikah halala, iddat, and child marriage.
  • Uniform age for girls’ marriage across all religions.
  • Mandatory registration of live-in relationships.

Significance:

  • Emphasis on gender equality by treating men and women equally in matters such as inheritance and marriage.
  • Muslim women are likely to receive an equal share of property, increasing from the current 25%.

Exemptions:

  • Scheduled tribes (STs) are exempted from the UCC Bill.
  • STs, constituting about 3% of the population, have voiced dissent due to their special status.

Concerns:

  • Minimum marriage age remains unchanged: 18 for women and 21 for men.
  • Mandatory registration of live-in relationships, with criminalization if not complied with, raises concerns about state interference and individual autonomy.

Concerns in the Bill Regulating Consensual Relationships

Overriding Powers to the Registrars:

  • Partners required to submit a statement to the Registrar.
  • Registrar empowered to examine the statement and conduct an inquiry.
  • Personal appearance may be required, and registration refusal is possible.
  • Termination of relationship also necessitates notice submission.

Imposition of Criminal Penalty:

  • Bill includes imprisonment or fine (or both) for failure to file the statement.
  • False information submission incurs penalties.
  • Registrar informs details to police station under couple’s jurisdiction.

Infringing on Individual Autonomy:

  • Bill overlooks the informal nature of live-in relationships, erasing distinction from marriage.
  • Couples in such relationships deserve autonomy, which regulated marriages lack.

Excessive Moral Policing:

  • Bill’s provisions create a chilling effect on live-in partners, discouraging relationships.
  • Police involvement amplifies fear of non-compliance leading to civil and criminal consequences.

Violation of the Right to a Dignified Life:

  • One-month limit on submitting statements restricts intimacy and free decision-making.
  • Impedes the expression of feelings and personal choices, protected under Article 21.

Regulating Consensual Relationships: Key Considerations

Clear Policy Alignment with Constitution:

  • A democratic state must align its policies with constitutional principles.
  • Criminalization should be based on constitutional grounds, not solely on conservative views.
  • Not all moral concerns should translate into legal enforcement.

Upholding Right to Sexual Privacy:

  • The Supreme Court, in Joseph Shine vs Union of India (2018), emphasized the importance of sexual privacy.
  • Laws should not encroach upon consensual relations, recognizing the private sphere.

Embracing Right to Privacy Principles:

  • The landmark Puttaswamy case (2017) reiterated the sanctity of personal space.
  • State intrusion into private matters violates fundamental rights.

Preventing Discrimination and Promoting Inclusion:

  • Inter-caste and inter-religious couples face societal and legal challenges.
  • Laws regulating consensual relationships should foster inclusivity and protect vulnerable individuals.

Affirming Right to Marry as Fundamental:

  • Individuals have the right to choose their life partners.
  • State and societal interference in marital choices should be limited.

Respecting Women’s Autonomy:

  • Women’s autonomy over their bodies and choices is crucial.
  • This includes protection of reproductive rights and freedom from forced decisions.

Ensuring Horizontal Application of Privacy Rights:

  • Privacy rights should protect against both state and non-state interference.
  • Regulation should govern how information is handled by all parties, not just the state.

Incorporating Proportionality:

  • Regulations should pass the proportionality test, ensuring they are necessary and balanced.
  • This involves considering legitimate goals, rational connections, and least restrictive measures.

Conclusion

The Uttarakhand Bill of 2024, proposing mandatory registration and potential criminalization of live-in relationships, raises concerns regarding fundamental rights. By blurring the lines between marriage and live-in arrangements, the Bill overlooks the distinct dynamics of the latter. This not only creates apprehension among couples but also encroaches upon their right to privacy and freedom of choice. In a democratic setup, it’s crucial to uphold principles like autonomy, privacy, and equality, rather than imposing arbitrary constraints on personal relationships.

April 19, 2024 by Published by THE HINDU