A PIL in the Uttarakhand High Court challenges the State’s Uniform Civil Code (UCC). The petitioner acknowledges that the UCC has eliminated many discriminatory practices. However, they argue that certain provisions impose unreasonable restrictions. The court will examine the validity of these concerns.
A lawyer filed a petition in the Uttarakhand High Court challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the recently implemented Uniform Civil Code (UCC) by the Uttarakhand government.
The petitioner, Advocate Aarushi Gupta, seeks a declaration that key provisions relating to the scope of the UCC, marriage registration requirements, and the registration or termination of live-in relationships are unconstitutional.
She specifically questions the validity of Sections 3(c), 3(n)(iv), 4(iv), 8, 11, 13, 25(3), 29, 32(1) and (2), 378, 380(1), 384, 381, 385, 386, and 387 of the Uttarakhand UCC 2025, along with the associated rules.
The High Court has yet to list the matter. The petition has been filed through Advocate Ayush Negi.
In her argument, Gupta states that while the UCC aims to eliminate several discriminatory practices, some provisions impose unreasonable restrictions that infringe upon the fundamental right to privacy and are discriminatory toward minority communities.
She critiques the broad definition of residents under the UCC, which applies to anyone residing in Uttarakhand for a year or more, arguing that it could unreasonably include permanent residents from other states.
Gupta contends that although the UCC was intended to standardize laws regarding marriage and divorce, certain provisions appear to favor the majority religion and disregard the customs of minority communities, such as Parsis and Muslims.
Her concerns include,
- The UCC’s marriage registration requirements disregard customary practices of minority communities like Muslims and Parsis. While the UCC prohibits marriages between closely related individuals, it defines these relationships based on the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. Gupta argues that this effectively imposes Hindu definitions on non-Hindu communities, thereby subjecting minority practices to the majority’s moral framework.
- The UCC does not permit polygamous marriages unless sanctioned by law. Gupta points out that while some Muslim sects practice polygamy as a custom, the UCC’s provisions ignore these practices, reflecting a lack of consideration for the customs of certain religions.
- Section 25(3)(ii) of the UCC provides additional grounds for divorce if a husband has multiple wives married before the Code’s enactment, effectively targeting only Muslim men.
Also Read: Uttarakhand Becomes the First State in India to Implement Uniform Civil Code (UCC)
Regarding live-in relationships, Gupta raises several issues,
- The exclusion of LGBTQ+ couples from registering live-in relationships is questioned.
- The UCC’s definition of “live-in relationship” lacks clarity on the necessary duration of cohabitation for registration, which Gupta argues is essential.
- She characterizes the penalties for failing to register live-in relationships ranging from three to six months of imprisonment or fines of Rs.10,000 to Rs.25,000 as excessive and potentially harassing.
- Gupta also criticizes the requirement for 18-year-old women to inform their legal guardians before entering live-in relationships, contrasting this with the UCC’s allowance for them to marry without such a prerequisite.
- The petitioner argues that registrars have been given excessive authority to determine whether individuals claiming to be roommates are genuinely in a live-in relationship, which should not be subject to subjective discretion.
- The necessity for individuals to disclose previous relationships when registering for a live-in partnership is seen as a violation of privacy.
- Additionally, the UCC subjects those wishing to register live-in relationships to criminal prosecution if one partner is from another state, which Gupta deems unnecessary.
The petitioner asserts that these provisions, drafted without adequate consideration, grant moral policing powers to state authorities, leading to potential harassment. She concludes that these aspects of the UCC fail the proportionality test established by the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy case regarding the right to privacy.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
