<p>A Uniform Civil Code (UCC) for the country is a constitutional ideal proposed by Article 44 as part of the Directive Principles of State Policy. The BJP government in Uttarakhand has claimed to have fulfilled the ideal by formulating a common civil code and getting it passed by the state Assembly. Article 44 says that the “State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India”. The first question that the Uttarakhand bill, which is applicable only within the territory of that state, raises is how it satisfies the constitutional idea of a national code. The governments in other states may also follow the Uttarakhand model of bringing out their own legislations. Rajasthan has already said so. How can the separate UCCs of different states be called the forms of a uniform civil code? If they are all separate and different, they cannot claim to be uniform. </p>.<p>A UCC is expected to apply to all people and communities in the country. But the Uttarakhand bill exempts tribal communities from its scope. That has given rise to the charge that the UCC is specifically targeted against the minorities. The bill has laid down norms and practices with respect to marriage, divorce, inheritance and adoption, and all areas of personal law, and some of these are welcome. One undesirable and dangerous provision is that live-in relationships have to be compulsorily registered. This is an invasion of privacy and a violation of the individual’s freedom to enter into marital and social relationships with other individuals. The government cannot assume the power to disapprove of individuals’ voluntary relationships. The legislation makes it mandatory for both partners to inform the government of their relationship within a month after they start living together, failing which they will face a prison term of up to three months or a fine, or both. Violation of a civil law should not be considered a criminal act that invites a jail term. The provision is also likely to be misused and will attract vigilantism. The records are to be kept with the police and that makes the provision especially ominous. </p>.<p>The bill bans polygamy and polyandry by stating that a marriage is legal “only if neither party has a spouse living at the time of marriage”. This is a welcome provision but is certain to be challenged on the ground that it goes against the constitutional guarantees on personal laws. The UCC has been a longstanding promise of the BJP and the party has tried to make Uttarakhand the testing ground for its implementation. While a common civil code is a desirable goal, the BJP has seen it as a political weapon against the minorities. </p>
<p>A Uniform Civil Code (UCC) for the country is a constitutional ideal proposed by Article 44 as part of the Directive Principles of State Policy. The BJP government in Uttarakhand has claimed to have fulfilled the ideal by formulating a common civil code and getting it passed by the state Assembly. Article 44 says that the “State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India”. The first question that the Uttarakhand bill, which is applicable only within the territory of that state, raises is how it satisfies the constitutional idea of a national code. The governments in other states may also follow the Uttarakhand model of bringing out their own legislations. Rajasthan has already said so. How can the separate UCCs of different states be called the forms of a uniform civil code? If they are all separate and different, they cannot claim to be uniform. </p>.<p>A UCC is expected to apply to all people and communities in the country. But the Uttarakhand bill exempts tribal communities from its scope. That has given rise to the charge that the UCC is specifically targeted against the minorities. The bill has laid down norms and practices with respect to marriage, divorce, inheritance and adoption, and all areas of personal law, and some of these are welcome. One undesirable and dangerous provision is that live-in relationships have to be compulsorily registered. This is an invasion of privacy and a violation of the individual’s freedom to enter into marital and social relationships with other individuals. The government cannot assume the power to disapprove of individuals’ voluntary relationships. The legislation makes it mandatory for both partners to inform the government of their relationship within a month after they start living together, failing which they will face a prison term of up to three months or a fine, or both. Violation of a civil law should not be considered a criminal act that invites a jail term. The provision is also likely to be misused and will attract vigilantism. The records are to be kept with the police and that makes the provision especially ominous. </p>.<p>The bill bans polygamy and polyandry by stating that a marriage is legal “only if neither party has a spouse living at the time of marriage”. This is a welcome provision but is certain to be challenged on the ground that it goes against the constitutional guarantees on personal laws. The UCC has been a longstanding promise of the BJP and the party has tried to make Uttarakhand the testing ground for its implementation. While a common civil code is a desirable goal, the BJP has seen it as a political weapon against the minorities. </p>