The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday said that persons affected by the state’s Uniform Civil Code or facing related action from the authorities would be given a hearing if they approached the court, Live Law reported.

The bench of Chief Justice G Narender and Justice Alok Mahra was hearing petitions challenging the 2024 Uniform Civil Code Act. “If any individual is affected, they may approach this bench...If any action, please come [to us],” the bench said.

The Uniform Civil Code came into effect in Uttarakhand on January 27.

The code is a common set of laws governing marriage, divorce, succession and adoption for all citizens. Currently, such personal affairs of different religious and tribal groups are based on community-specific laws, largely derived from religious scripture.

The law in Uttarakhand mandates that all natives must register their live-in relationships, whether in or outside the state. Failure to do so could result in imprisonment of up to three months and a fine of up to Rs 10,000.

It has been claimed that registering such relationships will protect the rights of women and children. However, family and women’s rights lawyers have suggested that the current legal framework has safeguards to protect their rights.

At the hearing on Friday, advocate Kapil Sibal, representing petitioner Muammed Muqeem, urged the bench to set a date for him to submit arguments seeking a stay on the 2024 Uniform Civil Code Act, Live Law reported.

The legislation infringed on the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 and Article 25 of the Constitution, Sibal added. While Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty, Article 25 guarantees the freedom to practice, propagate and profess one’s religion.

Sibal also noted that the state government lacked the necessary competence to enact the Uniform Civil Code.

“The live-in relationship is being enacted in the UCC [Uniform Civil Code] by the state government without power,” Sibal said. “They have no competence because Entry 5 [in the Concurrent List of the Constitution] only allows them to pass legislation in respect of marriage and divorce.”

He added that live-in relationships did not come within its ambit. “This is exclusively in the domain of the Parliament under Entry 97 [of List 1],” Sibal added.

The court then told Sibal that it had already issued notices to the state government on two other petitions against the Uniform Civil Code and listed the matter for hearing on April 1.

However, Sibal said that persons affected by the code, including the petitioner, could face penal consequences in the meantime, Live Law reported. In response, Narendar said that any person affected by the legislation could move the court and would be heard.

On Wednesday, the court had asked “what was wrong” in regulating live-in relationships.

It was hearing other petitions filed by two persons, Almasuddin Siddiqui and Ikram, who challenged the Uniform Civil Code, stating that it violated the fundamental rights of Muslims and other citizens, as well as essential religious practices of the Muslim community.

Narender had also alluded to the “fallout” of not registering live-in relationships.

“What happens if this relationship breaks up?” asked Narender. “What if there is a child out of this relationship? In respect of marriage, there is a presumption regarding paternity but in a live-in relationship, where is that presumption?”

He added: “In the garb of invasion of your privacy, can the self-respect of another person be sacrificed, that too when he is your child and there is no proof of marriage… or paternity.”

Apart from these, two other petitions are pending before the court against the Uniform Civil Code.

The code requires couples who live together to fill out a 16-page form registering their relationship – a process involving the submission of several documents including Aadhaar cards, proof of termination of previous marriages or live-in relationships and landlords’ contact details.

If the relationship is deemed as a “prohibited relationship” under the state’s Uniform Civil Code, meaning if the parties are related by blood, they must get a certificate from a religious leader stating that they are eligible to marry.

Introducing a common personal law has long been on the Bharatiya Janata Party’s agenda and several states ruled by the Hindutva party have been taking steps towards implementing it.

In its campaign for the Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand, the BJP had mainly targeted Muslim personal law, arguing that it discriminated against women by allowing Muslim men to practice polygamy, inherit a greater share of property, initiate divorce and deny alimony.

Legal experts have said that the legislation has primarily drawn from Hindu personal law and could lead to the erasure of the personal law practices of minority communities.

Also read: