PIL in Uttarakhand High Court challenges State's Uniform Civil Code

A lawyer has moved the Uttarakhand High Court challenging the validity of certain provisions of the Uniform Civil Code recently implemented by the Uttarakhand government..The petitioner, Advocate Aarushi Gupta, has called for the Court to declare key provisions concerning the scope of application of the UCC, the requirements to register marriages and the registration or termination of live-in relationships as unconstitutional.In particular, the petitioner has called into question 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, as well as the corresponding rules.The matter has not yet been listed by the High Court. The petition has been filed through Advocate Ayush Negi..The petitioner argues that while the Uttarakhand UCC has curbed several discriminatory practices, some provisions of the Code involve unreasonable restrictions that encroach upon the fundamental right to privacy and are discriminatory to minority communities.She has also questioned the wide definition of "residents" to whom the Uttarakhand UCC applies. The Code has been made applicable to any person resident in Uttarakhand for a year or more. The petitioner says that this term (resident) has been defined so widely that the UCC would unreasonably apply to those who are permanent residents of other states too..Minority communities subjected to majority religion.The petitioner has contended that although the UCC was meant to standardise laws on marriage, divorce etc, some provisions seem to be majority-centric, discriminatory and drafted in utter disregard to the customs of minority religious communities such as Parsis and Muslims.The concerns raised by the petitioner in this regard include:- The provisions in the UCC regarding the preconditions to enter into and register a marriage ignore the customary practices of minority communities like Muslims and Parsis. The petitioner points out that the UCC generally prohibits marriages between persons who are closely related to each other (prohibited degrees of relationships), but goes on to define what these prohibited relations are based on their definition in the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. The petitioner argues that Muslims and Parsis have different definitions and follow different customary practices, which are entirely ignored in the UCC. Instead, the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act are effectively made applicable to non-Hindu communities, the petitioner says. Minority communities are being subjected to the morality of the majority religion, the petitioner claims.- The UCC also does not allow polygamous marriages, unless there is a statute permitting such a marriage. The petitioner points out that there is presently no law which permits polygamy, while certain sects of Muslims are allowed to enter into polygamous marriages as a matter of custom. Therefore, it has been contended that this UCC provision is largely drafted in utter disregard of customs and practices of certain religions, the petitioner claims.- Section 25 (3)(ii) of the UCC provides additional grounds for a wife to file for divorce, that is, if her husband has more than one wife to whom he was married before the Code came into force. This effectively targets only Muslims, the petitioner says..Live-in relationships.- The petitioner has questioned the exclusion of LGBTQ+ couples from having any right to register live-in relationships.- The petitioner points out that the definition of "live-in relationship" in the UCC does not have any reference to the length of time a couple has to live together for their cohabitation to be termed as a live-in relationship that must be registered under UCC. The length of a relationship is important, the petitioner says.- The petitioner adds that the punishment prescribed (three or six months imprisonment, depending on when the lapse was noticed or a fine of ₹10,000 to ₹25,000 respectively) for failing to register live-in relationships is excessive and could lead to undue harassment of people.- The petitioner has further questioned why 18-year-old women are not allowed to enter into live-in relationships without the authorities first being expected to inform their legal guardian or parent(s), when 18-year-old women are allowed to marry under the UCC without any such requirement.- The petitioner adds that Registrars have been given excessive powers to examine whether people who claim to be roommates are actually in live-in relationships. Such matters cannot be left to the whims and fancies of Registrars, the petitioner says.- The fact that those wishing to register into a live-in relationship need to give information on their previous relationships also violates their right to privacy, the petitioner further argues.- If one of the partners in a live-in relationship is from another state, the UCC unnecessarily makes them amenable to criminal prosecution over trivial matters, the petitioner added..These provisions have been drafted without any application of mind and effectively give moral policing powers to State authorities, which could lead to undue harassment, the petitioner has contended.Such provisions of the UCC, thus fail the disproportionality test laid down by the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy case (right to privacy case), the petitioner has said.