New Delhi: The Uttarakhand government Wednesday defended its Uniform Civil Code (UCC) before the state high court and said a live-in relationship between close relatives must be regulated by law, while such a marriage should be “prohibited in any civilised society”.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented the state and Centre before the bench led by Chief Justice G. Narender, told the court that as per Schedule 1 and 2 of the code, a man cannot marry his mother, step mother, daughter, son’s widow and other close relatives.
The law officer’s preliminary submissions were made in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed before the high court, challenging the “Uniform Civil Code Uttarakhand 2024”. Uttarakhand is the first state to roll out the UCC in India.
The PIL, filed by Almasuddin Siddiqui and Ikram, challenged the code on the ground that it violated the fundamental rights of the Muslim community and other citizens as guaranteed under the Constitution and other essential religious practices.
During the brief hearing, the petitioners’ counsel raised an objection specifically to the “degrees of prohibited relationships” in the UCC and claimed there could not be any restraint against a Muslim man marrying his cousin, as is the current practice in the community.
The code mentions 74 relationships, 37 each for men and women whom they cannot marry or be in a live-in relationship with unless they have been permitted by a religious leader.
Mehta countered the petitioners’ argument, saying he would have to first show he had a fundamental right to marry his sister. If he failed to establish it, then he cannot challenge such a provision that is required in “any civilised society”.
The solicitor also addressed another contentious point of the UCC—registration of live-in couples. On this, Mehta said experience had shown that after having lived in live-in relationships —without any commitment—a man deserts the woman, leaving her and children born out of such an “illegitimate relationship”.
Mehta explained the code did not prohibit live-in relationships, but merely regulated it by requiring them to get registered. Registration of the relationship would accord legal recognition to it, entitling the child born out of it to seek remedy from a competent court. Such a child born out of a relationship would be treated as legitimate, and extend rights to it and the woman for seeking maintenance, he added.
Responding to the petitioners’ argument that the code was discriminatory because it exempted people belonging to Scheduled Tribes (ST), Mehta said UCC had not been made applicable to them because the Constitution identifies STs as a separate class. STs have been given specific protection under Part XXI of the Constitution, he told the bench.
Taking note of the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides, the bench issued a notice to the state and gave it six weeks to reply. However, it did not stay the code’s operation.
The petition before the high court argued that laws prescribed in the Quran and its verses constituted an essential religious practice for Muslims, and that the UCC 2024, which governed these religious matters, contradicted Quranic teachings. The code, it claimed, violated Article 245 of the Constitution, as it functioned as a state law with extra-territorial jurisdiction.
As per Article 245, Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, and the state legislature may make laws for the whole or any part of the state.
According to the petition, mandatory registration of live-in relationships and the penal provisions for non-compliance offend the Right to Privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
(Edited by Tikli Basu)
Also Read: Uttarakhand UCC doesn’t reform Indian family law. Gender equality was never its intention