The Significance of the UCC Dialogue
The implementation of the Uniform Civil Code (“UCC”) under Article 44 has been extensively debated in India. On one hand, it seems essential to achieve gender justice since most personal laws discriminate against women; on the other, it risks the Indian diversity and may be seen as an attempt to impose majoritarian norms on minorities. This article argues that the Indian experience with the UCC should be participatory, incremental, and must focus on achieving the goal of gender justice rather than mere consistency in laws.
The Indian debate on the Uniform Civil Code has attracted a wide range of theoretical responses from scholars who approach law through cultural, feminist, and constitutional lenses. Werner Menski’s work on legal pluralism reminds us that law cannot be detached from social life, religion, or community practices, underscoring the limits of purely codified reforms.
Flavia Agnes, from a feminist legal perspective, cautions that the pursuit of uniformity should not obscure the lived inequalities within different religious frameworks, while Upendra Baxi highlights that the legitimacy of reform depends less on formal uniformity and more on its moral resonance with the Constitution’s vision of justice.
The debate on the Uniform Civil Code in India has evoked various theoretical responses from scholars using cultural, feminist, and constitutional lenses with which to approach law. Werner Menski’s work on legal pluralism reminds us that law cannot be disentangled from social life, religion, or communal practices, pointing out the limitation of strictly codified reforms.
Flavia Agnes, from a feminist legal perspective, calls for an approach where the desire for uniformity does not obscure lived inequalities within the different religious frameworks, while Upendra Baxi points out that the legitimacy of reform depends less on formal uniformity than on its moral resonance with the Constitution’s vision of justice.
Lessons from Abroad
France – Codification as an Act of Power
When Napoleon codified the civil law in 1804, he did not simply unify laws; he proclaimed that citizenship is beyond the reach of the clergy. The Code Civil uprooted feudal as well as religious discrimination, assuring equal treatment before lay law. The French model for India demonstrates the strength of codification in bestowing citizens with dignity and clarity.
But France also shows a danger. Its strict secularism (laïcité) strangles public religious life. India, an open society, cannot tolerate such erasure. A Napoleonic-style UCC here would be perceived as an attack on minority identity. The French lesson is double: codification is empowering, but only if it is the product of consensus, not coercion. In my view, that’s the balance India cannot afford to get wrong.
Turkey – The Dangers of Bulldozed Reform
Atatürk’s Turkey in 1926 adopted the Swiss Civil Code in one-night, abolishing centuries of Islamic law. In law, it propelled women into equality: polygamy was prohibited, civil marriage was instituted, and divorce was placed under the law. Politically, it left a lasting mark. For the majority of Turks, it was more dispossession than reform. Even today, religious and law arguments are highly polarised.India cannot repeat Turkey’s mistake of reform without negotiation, as it can look liberal on paper, but it plants alienation in the ground. A UCC that Muslims, Christians, Parsis, or tribals believe is imposed by the Hindu majority will not hold for long under its own illegitimacy.
Switzerland – Flexibility as the Key to Legitimacy
The 1912 Swiss Civil Code is widely regarded as Europe’s most “elegant” code. But its true masterpiece is compromise: in creating national unity, it left room for sectoral variation in some areas. Such adaptability generated legitimacy in linguistically, culturally, and religiously diverse regions.India is much more multicultural than Switzerland. But the principle holds. Gradual, evolutionary UCC can create a minimal level of assurance for equality in marriage, guardianship, and inheritance, with minimal variations at the state-level or community-level.
Analyzing the Uttarakhand Civil Code
In February 2024, Uttarakhand became the first Indian state to enact a comprehensive Uniform Civil Code, thereby operationalizing the long-debated Directive Principle under Article 44 of the Constitution. Far from being merely symbolic, the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code, 2024 (Act No. 3 of 2024), represents India’s first statutory attempt to unify the personal laws across religions into a single secular framework. A close reading of the legislation discloses not only its progressive aspirations but also its complex doctrinal and constitutional implications. Let us discuss what provisions were introduced under the Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand, 2024.
Essentially, Section1 and Section 2 under Chapter 1 of the Act draw clear demarcations with respect to its applicability: it extends to all residents of Uttarakhand except members of the Scheduled Tribes. This is a necessary exclusion clause, similar to the historical caution shown by Article 371A (Nagaland) and Section 2(2) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, whereby tribal customs were preserved on account of them being socio-legal traditions.
Section 3 sets out detailed definitions, and in particular, redefines marriage as a “civil contract” and not as a religious sacrament. Such a shift from ritualistic solemnization to contractual registration implies a shift from religious to secular validity, which is in keeping with modern conceptions of personal autonomy under Article 21. This is contrary to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which specifically recognizes traditional rites such as saptapadi,which treats it as animportant religious ceremony under divine law.
In offering this definition, the Uttarakhand Code transcends “reform within religion” – as is evidenced by 1950s personal law codifications – to reform beyond religion, a critical jurisprudential shift.
Rules 4, 5, and 6 of the Uniform Civil Code Rules, Uttarakhand, 2025, under Chapter 2 deal with the appointment, powers, and duties of the Registrar General, Registrars, and Sub-Registrars, the key administrative authorities for implementing the Code. Rule 4 thus enables the State Government to appoint any officer not below the rank of Secretary as Registrar General and further allows the appointment of Registrars and Sub-Registrars for rural, urban, municipal, and cantonment areas.
Rule 5 to 6 detail the responsibilities and roles of these officers. Rule enumerates the duties of the Registrar General on conducting summary inquiries in cases of inaction by Registrars, deciding appeals on the registration of marriages, divorce, declaration of legal heirs, and live-in relationship registration, and providing procedural fairness through reasoned orders and hearings. Rule 6 prescribes the duties of the Registrars, specifically appellate authority over Sub-Registrars, timelines for inquiries to be conducted, and ensuring expeditious decisions within prescribed periods
Collectively, these Sections create a hierarchical and quasi-judicial mechanism for monitoring the registration processes under the Uniform Civil Code 2024, guaranteeing procedural accountability, transparency, and uniformity in applying the provisions relating to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and live-in relationships throughout Uttarakhand
Chapter V (Rule 15) of the Uniform Civil Code Rules, Uttarakhand, 2025 comprehensively discusses the registration and regulation of live-in relationships, implementing Sections 381 to 386 of the Uniform Civil Code, 2024. This chapter institutionalizes the recognition of live-in partnerships by mandating their classification, registration, and documentation under the State’s civil registry framework.
Rule 15(1) categorizes live-in relationships into two categories such those in existence on the date of commencement of the Code; andthose intended to be entered into after its commencement.
Rule 15(2) lays down the registration process. Couples already in a live-in relationship can be issued a registration certificate upon a summary inquiry while couples who intend to enter into a live-in relationship can first obtain a provisional certificate for a period of thirty days, further extendable by fifteen days, within which they have to provide proof of accommodation as a “shared household.” Only then can a final registration certificate be issued.
Sub-rule 3 of Rule 15 prescribes that the statement of live-in relationship should be supported with Aadhaar numbers, addresses, contact details, proof of residence, previous marital or relationship status, and particulars of children, if any. It also provides that the registrants must declare the concerned jurisdictional Registrar and the Police Station or Patwari Chowki having jurisdiction over the shared household. Thus, this rule integrates the registry and local law enforcement system for verification and monitoring.
Rule 20(1) provides a distinction between open access and restricted access to the information gathered under the Code. Non-personal statistical data, for instance, relating to the number of marriages registered during any period/area, shall be made available to the public on the official portal (www.ucc.uk.gov.in.)
Personal information like religion, caste, marital history, or family details can only be accessed jointly by the persons concerned. This stance advances data transparency yet protects personal privacy; at the same time, it does not quiet murmurs of digital surveillance and raises doubts if sensitive data is sufficiently secured.
Rule 20(2) and (3) are efforts in this direction, ensuring that there is no filing of false complaints and providing for the recovery of fines or penalties as arrears of land revenue in case of non-payment. Taken together, these provisions reflect a bureaucratic rationality devised to shield the system from frivolous use or malicious deployment while rendering the administration accountable.
Rule 20(4) thus provides for a standardized system of online grievance redressal, enabling complaints against Sub-Registrars or Registrars to be filed through the official portal or mobile app, and inquiry results must be communicated within a period not exceeding forty-five days.
It is at this point that Rule 20(5) connects registration and acknowledgment of marriages to eligibility for government schemes and subsidies to create an incentive for compliance with the Code. Registration or acknowledgement of a marriage will become mandatory to avail state welfare benefits six months from the commencement of the Codethat too in a shift from persuasion to conditional compulsion.
Further, Rule 20(6) and (7) provide that certified copies and extracts in respect of marriage, succession, or testamentary declarations shall be obtained upon an online application. Not only does it digitize the entire process, but it also formalizes documentation of matters hitherto governed by oral tradition or custom.
Finally, Rule 20(8) incorporates a social-welfare-oriented clause wherein landlords are forbidden from denying tenancy to those holding valid certificates of live-in relationships or provisional certificates. This stems directly from Chapter V, recognizing the need for registered live-in partners not to face discrimination in housing and thus providing the translation of legal recognition into practical protection. In sum, Chapter VI underscores the technocratic and bureaucratic aspects of the Uttarakhand UCC in integrating digital governance, administrative accountability, and conditional welfare incentives with family law. At the same time, it reflects a deeper tension between transparency and privacy, and facilitation and control, characteristic of state-led modern legal reform in personal law.
In my view, the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code of 2024, along with the Rules of 2025, represents an ambitious yet careful effort to turn constitutional ideals into practical administration. It is neither a radical departure from the past nor just a symbolic gesture; instead, it shows a gradual move toward legal modernity through bureaucratic accuracy. While the constitutionally driven goals of equality and uniformity are commendable, the heavy emphasis on registration, documentation, and procedural oversight reveals a deeper anxiety about control that runs through state-led reforms in India.
Without a doubt, recognizing live-in relationships, require marriage registration are significant steps toward gender justice. At the same time, police checks, data submission, and the risk of social exposure may unfairly impact women, inter-caste couples, and marginalized groups. Therefore, the Uttarakhand model blends progressive inclusion with paternalistic regulation: a reform that expands rights but also increases surveillance.
Ultimately, this initiative will only succeed if it builds trust rather than fear, encourages participation instead of mere compliance. A Uniform Civil Code must be felt not as an edict from the state but as a social agreement among equals, based on consent and constitutional morality. The Uttarakhand law has opened a door; the real challenge is to navigate the delicate balance between justice and uniformity without losing the spirit of freedom that the Constitution promises.
Author Name- Shourya Parihar is a fourth-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, GGSIPU, New Delhi.
