Policy Update
Mouli Jain
Introduction
Equality has always been one of the most celebrated ideals of a democracy. But does treating everyone the same necessarily make everyone equal? While the question may seem familiar, it remains particularly relevant in a country as socially, culturally and religiously diverse as India where the pursuit of equal rights often intersects with deeply rooted differences in customs, traditions and personal beliefs. This tension finds one of its most significant expressions in India’s ongoing debate over the Uniform Civil Code (UCC).
At its heart lies a seemingly simple proposition: one common set of civil laws for all citizens, irrespective of religion, caste and creed. Yet, beneath this promise of equal citizenship lies a more complicated question: can uniformity alone deliver equality, or might it sometimes come at the cost of individual autonomy?
The idea of a Uniform Civil Code(UCC) emerged during India’s constitutional debates and eventually found expression in Article 44 of the Constitution, which directs the State to endeavour to secure a uniform civil code for citizens throughout India. Included under Part IV, the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), it represents a constitutional aspiration rather than an enforceable Fundamental Right. Broadly, a UCC seeks to establish a common legal framework for civil matters traditionally governed by religion-specific personal laws, including marriage, divorce, inheritance and succession.
The debate acquired renewed legislative significance when Uttarakhand became the first Indian state to enact its own Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (U-UCC) in 2024, which came into force on 27 January 2025. The legislation introduces common provisions governing marriage and divorce, prohibits practices such as polygamy, lays down rules for inheritance and succession, and brings live-in relationships within a framework of registration and regulation.
While the law presents itself as an instrument of gender justice and equal citizenship, it also brings fundamental questions of religious freedom, privacy, individual liberty and the extent of state intervention into the personal sphere to the forefront.
Background
Uttarakhand marked a significant development by becoming the first state in independent India to enact a new legislation specifically titled the Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand Act, 2024 . The initiative followed the formation of a five-member expert committee chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai which was tasked with preparing a draft code. The Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly passed the Uniform Civil Code Bill on 7 February 2024, and it received Presidential assent on 11 March 2024 becoming the Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand Act, 2024.
The legislation came into force on 27 January 2025. Its applicability extends to all residents of Uttarakhand, including those residing outside the state with Section 2 exempting members of Scheduled Tribes and certain groups whose customary rights are protected under Part XXI of the Constitution. However, same-sex relationships remain outside its ambit as the Code recognises marriage and live-in relationships only within a heterosexual framework.
The legislation seeks to establish a common framework governing personal civil matters, irrespective of religious affiliation. Its scope covers marriage and divorce, succession and inheritance, and live-in relationships, among related matters. Beyond its stated objective of promoting gender justice and equal citizenship, the law introduces a significant shift in how the state engages with matters traditionally governed by religious personal laws. Its implementation therefore offers an opportunity to examine a larger constitutional question of whether a common legal framework can reconcile the pursuit of equality while protecting individual liberty.
Key Provisions
The U-UCC comprises a preliminary section, four substantive parts, and seven schedules, encompassing a total of 392 sections. Its provisions are organised into four broad parts:
Part I – Marriage and Divorce
Part II – Succession
Part III – Live-in Relationships
Part IV – Miscellaneous
Marriage and Divorce
Part I of the Code contains provisions relating to marriage and divorce, which apply uniformly to everyone. The provisions seek to prohibit practices such as polygamy, child marriage, triple talaq, nikah halala and iddat while promoting gender equality.
1. Marriage: The conditions for marriage are largely based on the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The Code does not recognise same-sex marriage and prohibits polygamy. Marriages in violation of specified conditions are punishable with imprisonment of up to six months and a fine. While marriages may be solemnised according to the religious rites and customs of the parties, their legal conditions, including minimum age, prohibition of polygamy, prohibited degrees of relationship, registration and divorce, are governed by the UCC rather than separate personal laws.
All fresh marriages made after the code began must be registered within 60 days of solemnization, failing which a fine of up to ₹20,000 may be imposed. However, non-registration does not invalidate the marriage. Marriages already registered under the Uttarakhand Compulsory Registration of Marriage Act, 2010 from 26 March 2010 onwards are only required to be declared within 1 year of the code.
Source: https://uttarakhandhub.com/pariksha/gk/uniform-civil-code
The Code also recognises the right to remarry after a decree of divorce or nullity becomes final, once the appeal period has expired without an appeal or the appeal has been dismissed. It expressly allows either spouse to remarry their former partner without any condition requiring an intervening marriage with a third person, thereby addressing practices associated with Nikah Halala in certain parts of India.
2. Divorce: The Code provides common grounds for divorce and judicial separation. Marriages solemnised before or after its commencement can be dissolved only in accordance with the Code, notwithstanding any custom, tradition or personal law of the parties. It also retains restitution of conjugal rights as a matrimonial remedy, allowing a court to order resumption of cohabitation in specified circumstances.
The Code retains the Special Marriage Act, 1954 provisions on mental disorders as grounds for divorce and judicial separation, despite advances in psychiatry and the treatability of many such disorders. It could therefore have adopted a more contemporary approach rather than retaining provisions from decades-old legislation.
Inheritance and Succession
Part II of the Code establishes common rules for inheritance, drawing substantially from the Indian Succession Act, 1925. It provides for both intestate succession (inheritance in the absence of a will) and testamentary succession (inheritance through a will). Under intestate succession, heirs are divided into three categories, namely Class I, Class II and other relatives, with Class I heirs receiving priority.
| Class-1 heirs | Class-2 heirs | Others |
| Children, widows, parents, etc. | Siblings, nieces, nephews, grandparents, etc. | Anyone most closely related to the deceased person |
The Code places sons and daughters on an equal footing(only intestate succession) and includes both parents as Class I heirs, unlike the Hindu Succession Act, under which the father falls under Class II. It also removes the distinction between ancestral and self-acquired property for intestate succession. Further, it permits individuals to bequeath their entire property through a will, removing the traditional one-third restriction under Muslim personal law. The Code also recognises adopted, illegitimate and children born through surrogacy or assisted reproductive technology as biological children for inheritance purposes.
However, inheritance rights may be denied in cases such as murder of the deceased or certain instances of remarriage by the widow or widower of a predeceased relative. Disease, disability or physical deformity, on the other hand, cannot be grounds for disqualification.
Live-in Relationships
Part III of the Uttarakhand UCC specifically regulates live-in relationships, making it the first legislation in India to do so. It defines such a relationship as one between a man and a woman cohabiting in a shared household in a relationship resembling marriage, provided it is not prohibited under the Code.
The Code makes registration compulsory for partners residing in Uttarakhand. Registration is barred if either partner is already married, in another live-in relationship, within a prohibited relationship, or if consent has been obtained through fraud, coercion or misrepresentation. Either partner may terminate the relationship by submitting a statement to the Registrar. If either partner is below 21 years of age, their parents must also be informed.
Failure to register within one month is punishable with imprisonment of up to three months, a fine of ₹10,000, or both. False declarations attract similar imprisonment and a fine of up to ₹25,000, while failure to comply with the Registrar’s notice may attract imprisonment of up to six months and a fine of ₹25,000.
The Code recognises children born out of such relationships as legitimate and allows a deserted woman to claim maintenance from her partner. While these provisions protect women and children, compulsory registration and penal provisions raise concerns about privacy, individual autonomy and excessive state intervention in personal relationships.
Miscellaneous provisions
Part IV of the Uttarakhand UCC contains the miscellaneous and administrative provisions necessary for implementing the Code. It provides for the repeal and saving of existing laws, customs and practices that are inconsistent with the Code while protecting rights and proceedings that had already accrued before its commencement. It also empowers the State Government to make rules for implementing the Code, including the use of electronic and digital systems and procedures for registration. Further, it gives the Government the power to remove difficulties that may arise in giving effect to the Code. Thus, rather than creating substantive personal-law rights, this part primarily establishes the legal and administrative machinery required for the Code’s implementation.
Issues and Implications
Uniformity can make the law simpler, but it does not automatically make it fairer. The real test of the Uttarakhand UCC is therefore not whether it creates one set of rules but whether those rules protect equality without unnecessarily limiting privacy and diversity. While proponents frame it as a step toward gender equality and legal simplicity, critics, legal scholars, and rights activists have raised serious concerns. Several provisions reveal this tension.
1. The Mandatory Live-In Relationship Registration
This defeats the very purpose of live-in relationships. The U-UCC requires couples in live-in relationships to register with local authorities within 30 days with non-registration attracting penalties. Registrars are also required to inform the parents if either partner is below 21. Section 387(3) of The Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand, 2024 adds new categories of obligation and new categories of penalty which is a jail term of up to six months or fine for unregistered live-in relationships to a system already operating far beyond its administrative capacity.
While registration may facilitate legal protection, making it compulsory introduces a degree of formalisation that blurs the distinction between a live-in relationship and marriage. Individuals often choose live-in relationships precisely to avoid the institutional formalities and legal entanglements associated with marriage. By subjecting such relationships to mandatory registration and official scrutiny, the Code risks extending the regulatory framework of marriage into a relationship that was consciously chosen as an alternative to it.
There is a safety and moral policing risk too. In India, inter-caste and inter-faith couples may face family opposition, social hostility and in some cases, honour-based violence. Mandatory registration increases the visibility of relationships that couples may deliberately wish to keep private, while mechanisms involving parental notification and official verification can create additional avenues for external intervention.
2. Is It Truly “Uniform”?
The Code explicitly exempts Scheduled Tribes (STs), raising questions about the scope of its claim to uniformity. While this exemption is constitutionally grounded in the protection of tribal autonomy and cultural diversity, it also raises concerns about the exclusion of tribal women from the gender-equality reforms envisaged under the UCC. The preservation of customary practices, some of which may perpetuate gender-based inequalities, creates a tension between cultural autonomy and substantive equality. If the UCC is justified on the ground that common civil rights, particularly gender equality, require a uniform legal framework, the exclusion of tribal women leaves a gap in that objective.
Critics further argue that this reflects selective uniformity, with the government exempting tribal communities allegedly to avoid political backlash while bringing religious minorities under a common legal framework.
3. Majoritarian Bias
Critics argue that instead of picking the best, most progressive elements from all religious traditions, the code heavily mirrors existing Hindu personal law while outlawing distinct practices of minority groups.
For instance, The U-UCC is silent on specific traditional concepts such as the legal construct of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) for tax exemptions which primarily benefit one community while non-Hindu practices were discarded.
The Code also raises concerns regarding Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion, subject to constitutional limitations. While religious freedom does not protect practices that violate other constitutional principles, critics question whether imposing common civil rules at the expense of distinct religious practices unduly restricts this freedom. The larger concern is that uniformity, if pursued without sufficient regard for India’s religious diversity could weaken legal pluralism and the freedom of communities to preserve their distinct identities and practices.
4. Over-Criminalization of Civil Matters
Involving police stations, local registrars, and criminal courts in personal matters expands state surveillance into private bedrooms, shifting the legal focus from protecting individuals to punishing them for what should be civil non-compliances.
5. Constitutional Validity of the Law in Question
The very idea of a Uniform Civil Code is to establish one common set of civil laws for all citizens. Yet, with individual states beginning to formulate their own versions of the UCC, an obvious question emerges: how many different versions of a ‘uniform’ code can one country have? If each state adopts its own rules on marriage, divorce and inheritance, the country risks replacing one system of diversity with another. People who move between states may encounter different rules governing their personal relationships and rights. The irony is that an initiative intended to achieve uniformity could eventually produce greater legal fragmentation.
6. Equal Inheritance or the Possibility of Disinheritance for Women?
Based on a survey by Frontline Magazine, the UCC has diluted the inheritance rights of Hindu and Muslim women alike. The finding suggests that patriarchy has trumped both religion and the UCC. Worse, the legal basis for them to appeal against their disinheritance has been snatched.
It places sons and daughters on an equal footing under intestate succession. However, it also permits individuals to bequeath their entire property through a will, removing the one-third restriction under Muslim personal law. This gives individuals greater freedom to decide who inherits their property, but also creates the possibility of excluding daughters and widows altogether. In a society where women are often pressured to relinquish their inheritance in favour of male relatives (Inheritance laws under U-UCC), can greater freedom to dispose of property necessarily translate into greater equality for women? A legal right means little if the framework also allows it to be bypassed.
Furthermore, the online registration system under the UCC is vulnerable to manipulation in this age of artificial intelligence. For instance, the process of verifying witnesses under the UCC isn’t robust. In this scenario, women’s inheritance rights will be imperilled.
7. The Law Can Change, But Can Society?
Perhaps the most significant limitation of legal reform is that laws can change rights on paper, but cannot automatically transform attitudes within society. Despite the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 granting daughters equal rights in ancestral property, awareness and actual implementation have remained limited. Research across six districts of Uttarakhand in 2015 found that only 25% of the women surveyed were aware of these rights. Patriarchal attitudes, family pressure and lack of awareness continue to prevent women from claiming what the law already guarantees them. The UCC cannot magically overcome patriarchy by legislation alone, legal equality must be accompanied by social awareness and reform.
Way Forward
The answer, therefore, is not to choose between uniformity and diversity but to make uniformity more constitutional and inclusive.
Provisions governing live-in relationships should be reviewed to ensure that protection does not become surveillance.The State should intervene where there is evidence of coercion, exploitation or harm, rather than treating consensual adult relationships as inherently suspicious. The Supreme Court’s recognition of privacy and decisional autonomy in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India provides an important constitutional benchmark for such regulation.
U- UCC should be subjected to a constitutional equality test. Where a practice is discriminatory, it should be reformed regardless of the community from which it originates. Conversely, practices that are merely different but do not violate constitutional rights need not automatically be erased in the name of uniformity. This would shift the debate away from whether a provision favours or disadvantages a particular religious community and towards the more meaningful question: Is it fair, non-discriminatory and consistent with constitutional values?
Civil non-compliance should not automatically invite criminal punishment. Criminal law should remain a measure of last resort, particularly in intimate and family matters. Administrative penalties, correction mechanisms and civil remedies could often achieve the same regulatory purpose without unnecessarily bringing police and criminal courts into private relationships.
The provision allowing an individual to bequeath the entirety of their property through a will should be reconsidered, as it can potentially defeat the equal inheritance rights that the UCC seeks to establish for daughters and other female heirs. Rather than allowing testamentary freedom to completely override intestate equality, the Code could introduce a protected share for spouses and children. This would preserve the individual’s right to make a will while ensuring that women’s statutory inheritance rights cannot be entirely circumvented.
Finally, the implementation of the UCC must go beyond legislation. The experience of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 shows that a right written into law does not automatically become a reality. Legal awareness, accessible legal aid, women’s financial literacy and effective enforcement are therefore essential. At the same time, implementation must remain open to reform, particularly where seemingly uniform provisions produce unequal or unintended consequences. The Uttarakhand government itself describes the UCC framework as one intended to provide equal rights and streamlined governance.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding the Uttarakhand UCC brings us back to a larger question: does India need a Uniform Civil Code? The answer cannot be reduced to a simple yes or no. India’s diverse personal laws do contain discriminatory practices that require reform, and the constitutional promise of equality cannot remain confined to paper. A common civil framework can help address these inequalities, but the pursuit of uniformity must not become an end in itself.
Global experience shows that secular democracies do not rely on uniform laws to erase identity, rather, they use unified civil codes to establish baseline protections particularly regarding marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody so that no citizen’s constitutional rights are compromised by personal status law.
Uttarakhand’s implementation serves as a regional test case for whether codification can harmonize reform with cultural safeguards. Ultimately, a progressive UCC for India should not mirror rigid assimilation, but rather enforce strict gender justice and individual equality as universal rights while respecting the pluralistic fabric of a diverse nation.
India does not need uniformity for uniformity’s sake. Instead, it needs equality that respects diversity and justice that leaves no one behind.
References
The Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand, 2024. (2024).
https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/acts_states/uttarakhand/2024/Act3of2024UK.pdf
Government of Uttarakhand. (2025, January). The Uniform Civil Code Rules Uttarakhand, 2025. https://ucc.uk.gov.in/
Shukla, A. (2025, May 24). Towards a Uniform Civil Code in India: A Comparative Analysis of the Uttarakhand UCC Bill and its Potential for Nationwide Implementation. International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation, 7(3), 249-254.
https://ijlsi.com/article/view/towards-a-uniform-civil-code-in-india-a-comparative-analysis-of-the-uttarakhand-ucc-bill-and-its-potential-for-nationwide-implementation
Choudhary, L.N., & Narayan, M. (2024, September 23). Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand, 2024 – Uniformizing Marriage Laws and Legalizing Live-in Relationships. Journal of Psychological Health, 6(3), 220-223.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/26318318241279140
Krishnamoorthy, K. (2024, February 29). Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code: Unifying laws or dividing communities?. Frontline.
https://frontline.thehindu.com/politics/uttarakhand-ucc-bill-law-implications-for-uniform-civil-code-in-india-women-marriage-relations/article67899026.ece
Ashraf, A. (2026, September 28). Uttarakhand’s UCC has weakened women’s inheritance rights. Frontline.
Gupta, S. (2026, April 6). The uniform civil code promises equal inheritance. The data shows women are not getting it anyway. Down to Earth.
About the contributor
Mouli Jain is a 2025 Political Science graduate from Kamala Nehru College, DU, currently pursuing her Master’s in Political Science from IGNOU. With field experience in electoral surveys, research writing, and on-ground awareness initiatives, including menstrual health, her research interests span Gender and Feminist Studies, International Relations, Human Rights and Sustainability. She is passionate about human rights and aspires to contribute to the social and human development sector through research, advocacy, and community engagement.
Acknowledgments
The author sincerely expresses gratitude to the reviewers (Aditi Natasha Bhuinyan and Gowri Kodali), IMPRI India and the editorial team for their valuable comments, constructive suggestions, and continuous guidance throughout the preparation of this article.
Disclaimer
All views expressed in the article belong solely to the author and not necessarily to the organisation.
Read More at IMPRI:
Maharashtra Data Centre Policy 2023: Building India’s Data Centre Capital
Clean Plant Programme (CPP), 2024: From Healthy Roots to a Prosperous Future
