
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in Uttarakhand has introduced a controversial set of regulations that require live-in couples within "prohibited relationships" to seek approval from religious leaders before registering their relationship. The law stipulates that couples in such relationships must obtain a certificate from a religious leader verifying whether the customs of their community permit such unions. If not, the registrar can reject the registration.
The UCC also takes public morality into account when deciding whether to approve a live-in relationship, raising questions about the state's role in regulating personal choices. The state had in February last year passed the Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand Act, 2024, a legislation designed to establish a unified set of personal laws governing matters such as marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance and maintenance for citizens of Uttarakhand irrespective of their religion, gender, caste, or sex.
The political observers and social stakeholders were critical about the law as it restricts several of personal choices and freedom, though it is meant to equate every citizen under a single social law.
The provision requiring couples in "prohibited relationships" to seek religious approval is a form of moral policing. While it affects everyone, it’s particularly oppressive for interfaith couples, many of whom are Muslim-Hindu pairs already facing societal hostility. This law will make interfaith relationships even more vulnerable, emboldening vigilante groups to harass and target couples under the pretext of legality, they say.
Expressing strong disapproval of the UCC's approach, political analyst and social media influencer, Sumanth C. Raman, says such regulations could harm Uttarakhand's reputation, making it less attractive to investors and progressive individuals.
"People want to go to a place which is progressive, not regressive," he said, warning that the long-term effects of these laws could be damaging, even if the consequences are not immediately felt.
The UCC’s involvement in determining the morality of live-in relationships is another contentious issue. Sumanth believes the state should not be involved in regulating personal relationships between consenting adults.
Drawing from the Supreme Court's ruling that such relationships are not crimes, he stresses that it is not the state's business to decide what is morally acceptable in the private lives of its citizens. "It has been decriminalised, so the state should stay out of it," he adds.
"This is not just a legal issue; it’s about India’s soul. And the real question is, who is it meant to control, and why," asks author and activist Sairah Shah Halim.
Respecting Tradition vs. Individual Rights
The Act’s provision that allows couples in prohibited relationships to seek approval from their community leaders seems to be an attempt to balance tradition with individual rights. However, Sumanth believes this is "completely unnecessary" and constitutes an intrusion into personal privacy. He views this as an overreach of government authority, arguing that individuals should have the freedom to choose their partners without state interference. “It’s none of their business,” he remarks.
Shah Halim adds that; "If the UCC was genuinely about equality, it would focus on universal reforms across all communities. However, the emphasis often seems to fall disproportionately on selective personal laws, such as practices related to marriage, divorce, and inheritance. This selective scrutiny feeds into the narrative that customs of certain religion are somehow "regressive" and in need of state intervention, which stigmatises the entire community.
The UCC is being pushed in a political climate where anti-Muslim rhetoric has become normalised. From CAA-NRC to bulldozer politics, there's a pattern where laws are framed as neutral but disproportionately affect lives of people of different faith. The UCC fits into this broader agenda, making it feel less like a progressive reform and more like a tool for cultural domination, she adds.
By attempting to override Muslim personal laws, the UCC infringes upon the constitutional right to freedom of religion. This isn’t just about legal reform—it’s about imposing a majoritarian worldview that refuses to respect the diversity of India's social fabric. Muslims, along with other minorities, are being told that their identities and practices are negotiable in the name of "uniformity."
The state often weaponises the language of women’s rights to justify the UCC, claiming it will liberate Muslim women. But if women’s empowerment was truly the goal, why is the government silent on issues like rising violence against women, gender pay gaps, or female literacy? Shah Halim added.
Gender Bias in Prohibited Relationships
The categorisation of prohibited relationships in the UCC is gender-specific, listing 37 prohibited relationships for men and 37 for women. Sumanth acknowledges the significant gender bias inherent in these provisions, which stem from historical norms. He argues that all rules should be gender-neutral and questions whether these regulations will be enforced or remain a political tool used for noise-making. "If it’s something for political noise-making, then it might just stay on paper," he speculates.
The UCC Act is grounded in prohibitions similar to the Hindu Marriage Act and Muslim personal law, which aim to prevent relationships within certain family structures. While some argue that this is intended to protect genetic health, Sumanth dismisses this justification, pointing out that such cultural values are constantly evolving. He critiques the government’s preoccupation with cultural values, suggesting that it’s a matter of focus—providing basic services like healthcare and education should take precedence. He questions the validity of upholding historical cultural norms when they were not even a concern in medieval times, when emperors often had hundreds of wives.
Sumanth compares the UCC’s approach to that of authoritarian regimes that regulate citizens’ private lives. He suggests that India should focus on ensuring law and order, gender equality, and justice, rather than dictating the personal lives of its people. "The government has no business in this," he asserts, highlighting the need for balance between state responsibilities and the freedoms of its citizens.
The Future of Live-in Relationships under the UCC
Looking ahead, Sumanth foresees significant challenges in the future of live-in relationships under the Uttarakhand UCC. While social morals are fluid and evolving, he believes that ongoing government intervention will provoke resistance, particularly from traditional communities. He emphasises that what is considered moral today was deemed immoral yesterday, and societal norms will continue to change with time. "If someone had a harem of 100 women today, would we consider that moral? Of course not," he says, underscoring the evolving nature of moral values in society.
As the debate over the UCC in Uttarakhand continues, it raises profound questions about personal freedom, state interference, and the role of tradition in modern India. While Sumanth argues that individual rights should be prioritised, others may see the law as an attempt to protect cultural heritage. The future of the UCC will likely depend on how it is enforced, and whether it can strike a fair balance between protecting tradition and respecting personal freedoms.