Safiya Malik

A petition has been filed before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging the constitutional validity of several provisions of the recently enacted Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in the state. The petitioner, Advocate Aarushi Gupta, has argued that certain provisions impose restrictions that infringe upon fundamental rights, particularly the right to privacy and the rights of religious minorities. The petition questions the scope of the Code’s applicability, the mandatory registration of marriages and live-in relationships, and various provisions concerning divorce and polygamy. The matter has not yet been listed for hearing.

The petition, filed through Advocate Ayush Negi, challenges the validity of specific provisions of the Uttarakhand UCC, 2025, including 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. The petitioner has also challenged the rules framed under the Code.

The petition states that while the UCC aims to remove discriminatory practices, certain provisions "involve unreasonable restrictions that encroach upon fundamental rights." It is argued that the Code disproportionately impacts minority communities and imposes "majority religious norms on them." The petition also raises concerns regarding the "excessive regulatory power granted to State authorities," particularly concerning personal relationships.

The petitioner has also challenged the definition of “resident” under the UCC, which applies to any person who has lived in Uttarakhand for one year or more. It is argued that "this definition is excessively broad and could apply to individuals who are permanent residents of other states but have lived in Uttarakhand for a short period."

The petition states that while the UCC is intended to create uniformity in personal laws, some provisions "fail to account for the customs and practices of religious minority communities, including Muslims and Parsis."

The petitioner has raised objections to the UCC’s definition of prohibited degrees of marriage, arguing that "while the UCC generally prohibits such marriages, it defines prohibited relationships based on the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955." The petition states that "Muslims and Parsis follow different customs concerning prohibited relationships, which have not been considered in the UCC."

The petition also challenges the prohibition of polygamy under the UCC, stating that "certain sects of Muslims have followed the practice as a matter of custom." It is argued that since there is "presently no law permitting polygamy, this provision disregards the religious customs of specific communities."

Section 25(3)(ii) of the UCC, which allows a wife to seek divorce if her husband has more than one wife married before the Code came into force, is also challenged. The petition states that "this provision disproportionately affects Muslim men, who were previously permitted to enter into polygamous marriages under their personal law."

The petition challenges the UCC’s regulation of live-in relationships and argues that its provisions "impose excessive restrictions and violate the right to privacy." The petition also states that the UCC "excludes LGBTQ+ couples from the right to register live-in relationships, creating an arbitrary classification that fails the test of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution."

Another objection raised concerns the requirement to register live-in relationships without specifying a minimum period of cohabitation. The petition argues that "the absence of a minimum duration for cohabitation allows excessive discretion in enforcement, leading to potential harassment of couples who may simply be residing together as roommates."

The petition also questions the penalties for failing to register a live-in relationship, which include imprisonment of three to six months or fines ranging from ₹10,000 to ₹25,000. It is argued that "such punitive measures are disproportionate and could be misused to harass individuals exercising their personal autonomy."

Further, the petition challenges the requirement that women aged 18 must obtain parental or guardian consent before registering a live-in relationship, while they are allowed to marry at the same age without such a requirement. The petition states that "this differential treatment contradicts the principle of legal adulthood and autonomy recognized under marriage laws."

The petitioner has also raised concerns about the discretionary power granted to Registrars to determine whether individuals are in a live-in relationship or merely cohabiting as roommates. The petition states that "such matters cannot be left to the subjective assessment of State officials, as this could lead to invasive scrutiny and harassment."

Additionally, the petition argues that requiring individuals to disclose their past relationships when registering a live-in partnership infringes upon their right to privacy. The petition cites the Supreme Court’s ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which held that any restriction on privacy must meet the test of proportionality. The petitioner contends that "forcing individuals to disclose prior relationships amounts to an unjustified invasion of their personal lives and fails the proportionality test."

The petition states that several provisions of the UCC "effectively grant moral policing powers to State authorities, leading to the possibility of undue harassment." The petitioner has argued that "such provisions have been drafted without adequate consideration of constitutional principles and personal freedoms." The petition further states that these restrictions "fail the proportionality test as established by the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy judgment."

The petitioner has sought the High Court’s intervention to declare the contested provisions unconstitutional and to ensure that personal autonomy and privacy are upheld under the UCC framework.

The High Court has not yet listed the matter for hearing.