A petition has been filed in the Uttarakhand High Court challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Uniform Civil Code recently implemented by the state government.
Filed by Advocate Aarushi Gupta, the petition contended that while the law managed to curb several discriminatory practices, certain provisions of the Uttarakhand UCC 2025 involved unreasonable restrictions that encroached upon the fundamental right to privacy and were discriminatory to minority communities.
The plea challenged the constitutional 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 was yet to be listed by the High Court.
The plea termed as unconstitutional, certain provisions of the UCC seeking registration of marriages and live-in relationships, as well as termination of live-in relationships.
It further questioned the wide definition of ‘residents’ to whom the Uttarakhand UCC would apply.
Filed by Advocate Ayush Negi, the petition contended that the Code applied to anyone residing in Uttarakhand for more than a year. The term (resident) has been defined so widely that UCC would unreasonably apply to permanent residents of other states as well, it pointed out.
The petitioner further submitted that although the UCC was meant to standardise laws on marriage and divorce, some provisions seem to be majority-centric, discriminatory and drafted in utter disregard to the customs of minority religious communities, including Parsis and Muslims.
It said the provisions in the UCC regarding the preconditions to enter into and register a marriage ignored the customary practices of minority communities like Muslims and Parsis.
The UCC generally prohibited marriages between persons closely related to each other (prohibited degrees of relationships), however, it defined these prohibited relations based on their definition in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Muslims and Parsis had different definitions for marriages and followed different customary practices, a fact completely ignored in the UCC. Instead, the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act have been effectively made applicable to non-Hindu communities. The Minority communities would be subjected to the morality of the majority religion, it noted.
Noting that there was no provision in the Uttarakhand UCC 2025 permitting polygamous marriages, unless there was a statute allowing the same, the plea submitted that although no current law allowed polygamy, certain sects of Muslims were permitted to enter into polygamous marriages as a matter of custom.
The petitioner alleged that this particular provision of Uttarakhand UCC was largely drafted in utter disregard of customs and practices of certain religions.
Alleging that Section 25 (3)(ii) of the Code targeted Muslims, the petitioner pointed out that the provision provided additional grounds for a wife to file for divorce, if her husband had more than one wife to whom he was married before the Code came into force.
Speaking about live-in relationships, it said the UCC did not define the length of time a couple had to live together for their cohabitation to be termed as a live-in relationship for registration under UCC. The plea also raised objection to the exclusion of LGBTQ+ couples from having any right to register live-in relationships.
The punishment prescribed for failing to register live-in relationships (three or six months imprisonment, depending on when the lapse was noticed; or a fine of Rs 10,000 to Rs 25,000, respectively) was excessive and could lead to undue harassment of people, it added.
The petition further questioned the provision requiring the live-in couple to give information about their previous relationships. This violated the couple’s right to privacy, it added.
The plea said the UCC unnecessarily made a live-in couple amenable to criminal prosecution over trivial matters, if one of the partners belonged to some other state.
It also questioned the provision requiring 18-year-old women to first inform their legal guardian or parent(s) before registering for a live-in relationship. The plea pointed out women of the same age were allowed to marry under the UCC without any such requirement.
It also expressed concern over the excessive powers given to the Registrars to examine whether people claiming to be roommates were actually in live-in relationships. The plea noted that such matters could not be left to the whims and fancies of the Registrars.
Claiming that some of provisions had been drafted without any application of mind and effectively gave moral policing powers to State authorities, the petition claimed that it could lead to undue harassment.
Such provisions of the UCC failed the disproportionality test laid down by the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy case (right to privacy case), it added.