The coming of a sanskari code

The bad news is that a most repugnant, openly divisive but supposedly ‘uniform’ civil code (UCC) came into force in Uttarakhand on 27 January 2025. The good news (keep your fingers crossed) is that not many so far seem to be taking it seriously.

It is seen for what it is — another weapon to selectively target Muslims and appease the BJP’s core constituency of conservative Hindus. The Bill was passed two months before last year’s general election and the Act enforced nine days before the Delhi assembly election on 5 February 2025.

Having failed to clear doubts about its Constitutional validity, there is also consensus that it is headed towards protracted litigation in the courts. A uniform civil code can only be passed by Parliament to ensure that codes enforced by different states do not come into conflict with Central laws.

The UCC does not specify that it will override the Hindu Marriage Act, the Hindu Succession Act or the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act — all Central laws. It does not say anything about doing away with income tax exemptions granted to the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or about extending such exemptions to other communities. It also fails to address the different customs involved in marriage, divorce and inheritance among different subsects of Hindus.

A key element of the UCC in Uttarakhand is mandatory registration of live-in relationships amongst consenting adults. The UCC describes a live-in relationship as one between a man and a woman, ‘who cohabit in a shared household through a relationship in the nature of marriage’.

Such a definition covers only heterosexual relationships. Not only does it not cover gay or transgender relationships, it also lists 74 prohibited relationships, including marriage between first cousins, which is permissible among many Hindus in the southern states and also among Muslims.

Couples need to register online by filling out a 16-page document along with copies of their Aadhaar and PAN card details within a month of entering into the relationship; they are also required to submit a statement when the relationship gets terminated.

Other documents required include domicile proof for those working in the state for more than a year and a copy of the rent agreement. For those who fall in the category of prohibited relationships, the couple needs to get a certificate from the local priest or community head. These will be forwarded to the local police station where the couple lives, or to the parent or local guardian in cases where one partner is under 21.

The government claims this is being done to protect women deserted by their live-in partners — women can now claim maintenance, while children born of live-in relationships will be recognised as legitimate, with the right to inherit property. The UCC expects the man to pay maintenance to a woman in case of a break-up (without spelling out when this kicks in). “This is totally unrealistic,” said a 35-year-old salesman. “Women today are working, why should a demand of maintenance be placed only on the male partner?”

Ten days after the UCC kicked in, three live-in couples have registered. They can’t move in, though, before police verification and approval by the registrar.

A young executive in his mid-20s, who has been living with his girlfriend from the time they were collegemates in Dehradun, scoffs at the UCC: “Only three kinds of people will benefit: the relative of the registrar who will head a company to issue fake certificates; the policeman who will collect a hefty sum from couples to ensure their names do not enter the public domain; the landlord who will mark up the rent he extracts from young couples like us who want to live together.”

Another young man in his late 20s, who is in a relationship with a young teacher, points out: “Living together is like doing a reality check — we want to find out whether we can make a go of our relationship.” They have been living together for three years and have no plans to formalise their relationship.

The worst thing about the UCC is that it ends up criminalising live-in relationships. Couples who do not apply for registration within a 30-day period could face imprisonment of up to three months or a fine of Rs 10,000 or both. In case of false information given to the registrar when filing the application, the couple can face imprisonment of up to three months and a fine of up to Rs 25,000.

It is not uncommon for young village women (single or married) who have migrated to find work in the larger cities of Uttarakhand, to enter into live-in relationships. Such relationships are practical arrangements that help meet their sexual and economic needs, sharing rooms and expenses to make living affordable. Coming from conservative backgrounds, they hide such relationships from their families back home. Such women are oblivious of the UCC. The compulsory registration of couples has clearly been designed keeping inter-faith couples in mind.

This civil code is definitely a trial balloon and the next few months will show whether it will float or burst.