UCC is seen as an imposition that fails to acknowledge the region’s rich cultural and religious diversity.
The implementation of the UCC in Uttarakhand marks a significant moment in India’s legal history. While Goa has had a uniform civil code in place since the Portuguese era, Uttarakhand is the first Indian state to enact and implement such a law in the post-independence era. The move is widely seen as a test case for the rest of the country, as the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, has long advocated for a nationwide UCC, citing its inclusion in the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 44 of the Indian Constitution.
However, critics argue that imposing a uniform code on personal matters particularly those deeply tied to religion and tradition threatens India’s diverse cultural fabric and could lead to unnecessary conflict.
For the people of Uttarakhand, UCC is seen as an imposition that fails to acknowledge the region’s rich cultural and religious diversity. Many feel that the UCC disregards their unique traditions and customs, which are an integral part of their identity. Particularly for minority communities like Muslims, the Act is viewed as an unwelcome interference in personal and religious matters, and there is a growing sense of discontent over the potential erosion of their freedoms and beliefs.
“As a Muslim living in Uttarakhand, I believe that India’s strength lies in its diversity of cultures, religions, and traditions. The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) fails to recognise this fundamental reality. A one-size-fits-all approach ignores the unique customs of different communities, especially ours. The state should not impose laws that undermine our deeply held beliefs and values, but instead should foster respect for the diversity that makes our country truly unique,” Sania Ali, a resident of Sankri in Uttarkash district of Uttrakhand, tells Media India Group.
The Uttarakhand government’s decision to exempt Scheduled Tribes (STs) from the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) raises important questions about the motivations behind this move. While over 80 pc of the state’s population is Hindu, around 14 pc are Muslim, and various other communities make up a small portion of the population, the STs represent a tiny minority. Despite this, the government has chosen to accommodate their sensibilities, a decision that seems to show a degree of respect for the tribal communities’ unique cultural and social practices. However, the reason for this exemption remains unclear. According to critics, one can only speculate about the political calculations involved. While there is no evidence to suggest electoral compulsions are at play, the inclusion of such an exemption appears to be a strategic move, possibly to avoid alienating tribal communities who have a deeply ingrained connection to their traditional ways of life.
“I view the proposed Uniform Civil Code as a direct threat to our religion and our laws. It disregards the personal and religious freedoms that are essential to our community’s way of life,” Ali adds.
Not only Muslims but people from various religious backgrounds in India share concerns over the Uniform Civil Code . Many feel that while the idea of a unified legal framework is well-intentioned, it is not suitable for a country as diverse as India.
“The UCC may seem like a good step towards uniformity, but it fails to acknowledge the uniqueness of our country, with its vast cultural and religious diversity. India’s strength lies in its ability to respect and protect the customs of its many communities. Imposing a single law across all religions threatens to dilute our traditions and erode the very essence of our culture,” Sneha Prakash a resident of Mana in Chamoli Uttrakhand tells Media India Group.
While there are diverse opinions about the UCC, many individuals see it as a positive step toward strengthening the secular fabric of India.
“The UCC is a great initiative to promote unity and equality, but like any reform, it comes with its challenges. It has the potential to eliminate discriminatory practices and bring about a more cohesive legal system. However, the lack of social and political will often makes it difficult to implement effectively. While the UCC, as a Directive Principle of State Policy, is not legally enforceable, the government should focus on addressing the larger issues that threaten the nation’s secular ideals, rather than getting bogged down by the complexities of religious traditions,” Able John, a resident of Almora in Uttrakhand, tells Media India Group.
This view reflects the ongoing debate in India, where some people see the UCC as a necessary evolution, while others worry about its potential to disrupt deeply ingrained cultural and religious practices.
Long and controversial history of UCC in India
The idea of a Uniform Civil Code dates back to India’s independence. The framers of the Constitution included Article 44 in the Directive Principles, urging the government to work toward a common civil law for all citizens. However, they left the implementation to future governments, recognising the complex religious and social structures of Indian society.
Over the decades, the debate over UCC has resurfaced repeatedly, particularly in cases related to gender rights and religious laws. The Supreme Court has, on multiple occasions, called for its implementation, most notably in the Shah Bano case (1985), where it upheld the right of a Muslim woman to alimony under secular law, despite opposition from conservative Muslim groups. Similar arguments were made in the Sarla Mudgal case (1995) and the John Vallamattom case (2003), where the court reiterated the need for a uniform personal law system.
In 2018, the 21st Law Commission of India, however, opined that a UCC was neither ‘necessary nor desirable’ at that stage, suggesting instead reforms within personal laws to ensure gender justice. Despite this, the BJP-led government in Uttarakhand pushed forward with the legislation, arguing that a uniform code would promote legal consistency and social harmony.
What Does Uttarakhand’s UCC Entail?
The UCC in Uttarakhand holds significant legal and social weight, and Anshum Verma, a lawyer in based in Delhi sheds light on its key provisions and potential impact.
“The Uttarakhand UCC Bill, 2024, seeks to replace religious personal laws governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption with a uniform legal framework. Among its key provisions are a ban on polygamy, the abolition of triple talaq, iddat and nikah halala, a uniform marriage age across all religions, and equal inheritance rights for women. The Code is also likely to extend an equal property share to Muslim women against the existing 25 pc share accorded under Muslim personal laws. But Scheduled tribes (STs) have been exempted from the purview of the bill. The tribal population in the state, which is around 3 pc, had been voicing its dissent against UCC in the wake of the special status accorded to them,” Verma tells Media India Group.
Anshum Verma,
Verma emphasises that the provisions of the Bill raise significant concerns regarding personal freedoms and autonomy.
“The minimum age for marriage remains unchanged 18 years for women and 21 years for men yet the Bill introduces controversial measures surrounding live-in relationships that could infringe on individual freedoms. The requirement for couples in live-in relationships to register their partnerships and comply with various regulations is highly contentious. It grants the state an undue authority over consensual relationships, and criminalises what should be a private matter. By giving overriding powers to Registrars, the Bill allows them to review personal statements, investigate relationships, and even decline to register partnerships. This interferes with the autonomy of individuals, reducing their freedom to make decisions without state interference,” he adds.
Verma further expresses concern over the troubling imposition of criminal penalties for non-compliance. He points out that partners who fail to file the required statements or provide inaccurate information could face imprisonment or fines, with the police being notified about the details of their relationship.
“This heavy-handed approach not only violates the very essence of what live-in relationships represent autonomy without legal obligations but also opens the door to excessive moral policing,” says Verma.
In a society that already tends to regulate the choices of young couples, this Bill’s criminal penalties and bureaucratic hurdles create an atmosphere of fear, discouraging individuals from exploring relationships without the constraints of formal marriage.
“It is clear that the Bill fails to understand the fundamental difference between marriage and a live-in relationship, and instead seeks to regulate personal autonomy under the guise of legal protection,” he adds.
Verma emphasises that the law’s imposition of criminal penalties for non-compliance undermines the very principles of liberty and equality.
Choudhary Ali Zia Kabir
“The Bill’s provisions not only disrupt personal autonomy but also set a dangerous precedent for state control over private relationships. By mandating the registration of live-in relationships, the Bill transforms what should be a voluntary, personal choice into a state-regulated entity, which is a clear overreach. The sanctity of personal choice, essential for individual happiness and dignity, must be respected, and the right to privacy protected. Any legal reform should uphold the rights of individuals, ensuring that personal matters remain free from unnecessary state interference,” Verma adds.
Choudhary Ali Zia Kabir, a human rights advocate based in Jangpura, Delhi, raises fundamental questions about the state’s role in enforcing a Uniform Civil Code and its implications for religious and cultural autonomy. While he acknowledges the idea of a common legal framework, he warns against the dangers of imposing legal uniformity without first ensuring that communities are adequately informed and given a choice.
“The question is not just about legal uniformity but about how laws inherently alter the culture of a community. Should we interfere with these traditions using the force of law? Are we certain that this change is beneficial for every community? And if a community resists this change, do we simply let it continue practices that might exploit its own vulnerable members? If non-interference was the standard, should we have allowed practices like sati and dowry to persist?,” Kabir tells Media India Group.
Kabir also questions whether the push for UCC is truly about gender justice and equality or if it is being used as a political tool to target minorities.
“These are complicated and consequential questions of sociology, politics, and jurisprudence. Can we trust a government that refuses to criminalise marital rape, opposes equal rights for LGBTQI+ individuals, and seeks to homogenise indigenous and tribal cultures into a rigid nationalistic framework? Can we believe that such a government is genuinely committed to the liberation of minorities and not merely using the UCC as another instrument to target entire communities,” he adds.
Despite his concerns, Kabir agrees with the broader principles of UCC but believes that it should be introduced in a way that respects individual choice rather than being imposed upon communities.
“I am not against UCC in principle, but I believe communities should first be educated and given the option to adopt it rather than being forced. The Special Marriage Act, 1954, provides an alternative for those who wish to step outside religious laws in marriage. Similar legal frameworks could be introduced for other aspects of personal law, allowing individuals to make their own choices. The state’s role should not be to modernise religion but to ensure that every individual has the right to opt out of religious customs and is protected when they choose to do so,” Kabir adds.