The passage of the UCC by the Uttarakhand Legislature by the brute majority of the BJP invited several comments by those startled by this development, including one particular tweet that states ”BJP leaders wake up every day and think about new regressive ideas on how to take this nation back to the Stone Age”. Is this really true? Is the Uttarakhand UCC some knee-jerk hare-brained hasty law concocted overnight by the BJP? In answering this question, there are two histories that need to be traversed. Firstly, the genesis of UCC and its mobilisation to reconfigure society into a bigoted misogynist Brahmanical majoritarian one. Secondly, the project of the Sangh Parivar and its forefathers to restrict the presence of Muslims and Christians in a land that they ordained as “Dev Bhoomi”.

UCC has come to represent on the primary political demands of the RSS. Bharatiya Jan Sangh (BJS), the precursor to the BJP, which was created by the RSS ”not only to protect itself’ but also “to stop un-Bharatiya and anti-Bharatiya politics”, as per Malkani, introduced the agenda of the uniform civil code as a political demand. The promise was to end Muslim polygamy, repeal the Hindu marriage and succession laws and bring in a “uniform law for marriage, succession and adoption for all citizens.”. The short-lived merger of the BJS with various other political parties to form the Janata Party in 1977 ended in 1980 with most BJS members walking out into the new political formation of the RSS, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 1980. The 1980s saw the crystallisation of Hindutva’s political demands – Ram Mandir at Ayodhya, abrogation of Article 370 and the UCC. The thrust for UCC was the Rajiv Gandhi led Congress government’s move to override the Supreme Court decision in Shah Bano case granting her alimony. Over the past three decades, the RSS and its affiliates, including the BJP have repeatedly bandied UCC has an important plank of its Hindutva project, articulating it, however, under the need to achieve objectives enshrined in article 44 of the Constitution.

The last few years has seen the mobilisation of Hindu supremacist forces to alter the secular identity of Uttarakhand to that of narrow Hindu majoritarian “Dev Bhoomi”, which excludes the 13.5% Muslims and other religious minorities. To enable the realisation of “Dev Bhoomi”, vicious campaigns to demonise Muslims in particular have been undertaken in the name of countering unsubstantiated and fictitious claims called “land jihad”, “love jihad”, “mazar jihad” and more recently “vyapar jihad” alleging that Muslims are “capturing land, luring Hindu women, building shrines and taking over local businesses”. Violent rallies and open calls for Muslims to be removed from the State are a regular feature, and the police and BJP state government have ensured that this is done with impunity to these Hindu supremacist groups. The article “Driving Muslims out of “Devbhoomi” – The Sangh’s quest for a Hindu holy land” by Tusha Mittal and Alishan Jafri appearing in “The Caravan” painstakingly details the communally divisive politics practiced for decades  in Uttarakhand, which now “stands as an experiment of something larger—a micro model, a laboratory to create an exclusively Hindu land, a Hindu Rashtra in the truest sense”.

It is in this background that there is no surprise that as the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) was tabled in the Uttarakhand Assembly, slogans of ‘Jai Shri Ram’ were raised, revealing the hypocrisy behind its purported aim of bringing in a Code that transcends religion; rather the Uttarakhand UCC being another major step towards realisation of a theocratic Hindu majoritarian state.

Coming to a textual analysis of the Uttarakhand UCC, it must be said that though justified in the name of gender equality and uniformity, it is an attack on the women’s’ right of autonomy and bodily integrity on one hand, and diversity on the other. While it claims to unify family and personal laws, what it is in fact is a tool to curtail liberty and police intimate relationships.

Undemocratic Passing

In another demonstration of its disregard for any parliamentary democratic norms and processes, the BJP Government in Uttarakhand did not make public the Bill prior to its introduction, and the same was passed without any discussion. A committee that was constituted to prepare a draft proposal of the Uniform Civil Code had also not put out the draft prepared by them, and even during consultation had not called for objections to any proposed draft. A notification issued by them, without any proposal, called for comments.

CPI(ML) Liberation had in fact submitted its objections highlighting the impossibility of giving comments without a draft. The Objections submitted also highlighted that in regard to reform in personnel law, what was required was addressing inequality and discrimination, and not uniformity. The fears expressed therein have turned true, as the Code that was passed in the name of uniformity, not only reinforces discriminatory practices, but goes a step further encroaching on the liberty of people, and effectively policing all forms of intimate relationships.

Institutionalising patriarchy and policing in the name of gender equality

The UCC, remained without a concrete draft until the recent one introduced in Uttarakhand. Despite being advocated under the guise of gender equality, the Uttarakhand draft exposes its disregard for such principles, instead threatening fundamental liberties and granting the State authority to police personal relationships, in many ways criminalising the exercise of choice in intimate relationships.

Mandatory Registration of Marriages and “Live-in” relationships

The Code makes it mandatory for marriages and divorces to be registered, and provides for penal consequences for the non-registration of marriage, with failure to register the same inviting fine of up to Rs 25,000. The impact this would have on the plight of marginalised and vulnerable women is unimaginable.

The most talked about provisions of the Code is the mandatory registration of persons in “live-in” relationships within the state, regardless of their residency status. The Code mandates that any person in a live-in relationship or intending to enter into one, would have to submit a statement of the same before the Registrar, who would have the power to summon the persons concerned or any other person in the process of the enquiry. A statement is also required to be submitted to the Registrar upon termination of the live-in relationship. Upon such a submission, if either of the parties is below 21 years of age, the Registrar is also mandated to inform the parents/guardians of the party regarding the same. The failure to register a live-in relationship, invites penalty upto 3 months imprisonment or fine upto Rs. 10,000/- or both.

Compelling consenting adults to register their intimate relationship, empowering the Registrar to conduct an enquiry, and to call “the partners/ persons” or “any other person for verification” and “require the partners/ persons to supply additional information or evidence” penalising the failure to furnish such information is a shocking violation of the basic right to live with dignity and bodily autonomy.

It is claimed that this Code ensures to women in “live-in” relationships, the right of maintenance, which is in any event already protected under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

Allowing Public inspection of Registers

According to the National Crime Records Bureau, India witnessed 530 honour killings since 2015. These are only reported cases, with several unreported cases. The Supreme Court has noted the need to bring a law to address the same.

There have been several reports of members of the Sangh Parivar affiliate Hindutva supremacist organisations monitoring the Registrar of Marriages and notices under the Special Marriage Act, with the aim of identifying inter-faith marriages and potentially interfering with them. In fact, petitions have been filed seeking for the deletion of the requirement to furnish notice under the Special Marriage Act, due to the potential risk to the couples.

Instead of addressing either of these issues, the Code worsens the same.

As per the Code, the registers of live-in relationships, marriage, nullity and divorce are open for public inspection. The Registrar is also required to maintain a register of “live-in” relationships. This would only enable the policing and surveillance of inter-caste and inter-faith couples, whose lives are already precarious. These provisions institutionalise policing and surveillance of couples.

Retaining Restitution of Conjugal Rights

The Andhra Pradesh High Court in 1983, while striking down the provision for restitution of conjugal rights as unconstitutional, found that it constituted “the starkest form of Government invasion of personal identity and individual's zone of intimate decisions”. The Court found that “the decree for restitution of conjugal rights makes the unwilling victim's body a soulless and a joyless vehicle for bringing into existence another human being” and that “pregnancy would be foisted on her by the state and against her will”.

The Code has retained this provision on the restitution of conjugal rights, which has been recognised as violating the right to live with dignity. 

Equality Not Uniformity

The Report of the High Level Committee on the Status of Women in India (HLCSW) which found that the Uniform Civil Code, was not necessary, noted:

 “… The approach should be not one of ensuring that there is one law for all, but rather, that all women, whether they choose to be governed by secular laws or their personal laws, enjoy equality which the Indian Constitution promises them. This requires addressing several aspects in the legal domain in specific ways rather than a diktat of ‘uniformity’, which is conceived of in fundamentalist/majoritarian ways.”

However, far from looking at discriminative practices and bringing about gender equality, the Code affirms such practices and bring about a direct assault on the deals of equality, liberty and fraternity. It is in fact the Codification of norms of brahmanical patriarchy, clamping down on choice, autonomy and bodily integrity.

Conclusion

The Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand, 2024 (“UCC”) passed by the Legislative Assembly of Uttarakhand will apply to all persons irrespective of their religion, but not really, since Adivasis exempted. Its provisions relating to personal relationships endanger inter-caste, inter-religion and relationships of choice. Violent Hindu supremacist organisations on the loose in a predominantly upper caste dominated society, with their political agenda, are now further emboldened to enforce their reconfiguration of society by using the public nature of the information on personal relationships. The encoding of Hindutva into law is a return to the days when the social and legal sanction was given to slavery and apartheid.