UTTARAKHAND’S UCC WILL BE SCRUTINISED IN THE COURTS!

• Even though Uttarakhand became the first state in the country to implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) after the due passage of the law, the rules leave no doubt in the mind that the same will be scrutinized by the courts in due course of time. The Bharatiya Janata Party-led state government has fulfilled its promise by ushering in the law though red flags were raised by the opposition ranks. While the BJP is quite gung-ho about introducing the UCC, the state government would be anticipating counter-petitions questioning the move’s constitutionality sooner rather than later. The moot point to ponder over here is whether it will stand the scrutiny of the law of the land when the Constitutionally guaranteed rights are questioned by the affected citizens.

PC:Mint

• Let’s dwelve further to comprehend the present form of the UCC that impinges on the guaranteed rights of the citizens as enunciated in the Constitution. Prima facie, it’s clear that the individual rights incessantly reinforced by the Supreme Court are under threat. Make no mistake, were Uttarakhand’s UCC rules to be legally challenged – a strong possibility – judges will have plenty to consider. For instance, take the case of live-in relationships. Failure to register a live-in relationship will attract jail term but failure to register a marriage will only cost a couple a fee. Needless to mention, this is unequal treatment of variants of the same thing – how two adults decide to define their relationship. Why should the govt don the moral police role unnecessarily?

PC:Law Trend

• Moreover, the very idea of registration negates the freedom of choice that’s at the core of live-in relationships. It gets worse. For live-ins renting a home, landlords have been empowered to be nosy. A landlord must collect info on his tenants’ previous relationships. How are past private choices of adults the business of their landlord, or the state? Can this pass legal scrutiny? Also, UCC rules say landlords must demand, on pain of being fined, proof from tenants that they are single. Govt rules can’t just appoint citizens as quasi-vigilantes. Neither can priests or community heads have a say. But UCC says registrars shall verify from community heads or religious leaders whether customs & usage permit marriage.

PC:NDTV Profit

This rule lists prohibited relationships that are drawn from the Hindu Marriage Act. How is it UCC if it sneaks in personal laws? Plus, the rejection of live-in relationships by the state is arguably a violation of constitutional rights. SC, in Nandakumar vs Kerala (2018), said – even if a man and woman are not competent to marry under personal law, they have the right to live together outside of marriage. SC in Khushboo vs Kanniammal (2010) was unambiguous – live-in relationships fall within the ambit of the right to life under Article 21. Also, what would an SC bench say about UCC’s demand that all registration info be shared with the local police station? Many clauses in the UCC will be up for scrutiny. Let’s brace up for the same.