Kiran Raj

The Uttarakhand High Court has issued a notice to the Central and Uttarakhand governments in response to multiple petitions challenging the validity of certain provisions in the recently enacted Uniform Civil Code (UCC). The petitioners have argued that the UCC violates fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution and interferes with essential religious practices. The court has directed the respondents to file their replies within six weeks and clubbed all similar petitions for a joint hearing thereafter.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Ashish Naithani passed the order while hearing petitions filed by Almasuddin Siddiqui and Ikram. The petitioners challenged the UCC on the ground that it violates Articles 14, 19, 21, and 25 of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, protection of life and personal liberty, and freedom of religion.

The petitioners also argued that the UCC infringes upon the essential religious practices of Muslims and other citizens. The petitioners contended that the laws prescribed in the Quran and its verses constitute an essential religious practice for Muslims, and by regulating these matters, the UCC contradicts Quranic teachings.

The High Court recorded that it was clubbing the petition with other similar pleas and scheduled the matter for further hearing after six weeks.

Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Kartikey Hari Gupta argued that the provisions of the UCC interfere with personal laws and religious customs. He stated that "the laws prescribed in the Quran and its verses form an essential religious practice for Muslims, and any interference with these laws is unconstitutional."

The petitioners further argued that the UCC 2024 violates Article 245 of the Constitution, as it functions as a state law with extra-territorial jurisdiction. They also raised objections to the mandatory registration of live-in relationships and the penal provisions for non-compliance, contending that these requirements violate the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioners also challenged provisions restricting certain forms of marriages permitted under Islamic law. During the hearing, the petitioners' counsel argued that there should be no objection to a Muslim man marrying his mother’s sister’s daughter or mother’s brother’s daughter, as these marriages are recognized under Islamic law.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union and State governments, opposed the petition and submitted that the Uniform Civil Code does not apply to Scheduled Tribes, as they are granted specific protections under Part XXI of the Constitution. He referred to Article 366(25) read with Article 342, which defines Scheduled Tribes as a distinct class, and asserted that no discrimination arises under the UCC.

Regarding the customs and practices among Muslims permitting marriage within the "degrees of prohibited relationships," as defined in the UCC, the Solicitor General directed the Court’s attention to Schedules 1 and 2 of the Code, which outline these relationships. He argued that "such marriages between close relatives should be regulated by law and prohibited in any civilized society."

In response to the petitioners' argument regarding marriage within specific family relations, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered that for the petitioners to succeed on this ground, they must establish a fundamental right for an individual to marry their sister. He asserted that "failing this, the petitioners cannot challenge a provision that is essential for maintaining social norms and legal order."

Another petition filed by advocate Aarushi Gupta is already pending before the High Court. This petition challenges key provisions of the UCC, particularly those related to:

• Scope of application of the UCC

• Requirements for registration of marriages

• Mandatory registration and termination of live-in relationships

The petition specifically challenges the constitutional validity of the following sections of the Uttarakhand UCC 2025:

• 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 petitioners argued that these provisions infringe upon individual rights, including the right to privacy, religious freedom, and personal liberty. The court recorded that this petition would be heard along with other similar pleas.

After hearing the arguments, the High Court issued notices to the Centre and the State of Uttarakhand, directing them to file their responses within six weeks. The court clubbed all related petitions and will hear them together after receiving the replies from the respondents.

The High Court recorded, "Considering the nature of the issues raised, the respondents are granted six weeks to file their responses. The matter shall be taken up thereafter."

Case Title: N/A
Case Number: N/A
Bench: Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Ashish Naithani