Delhi, 27 February (H.S.): The Uttarakhand High Court has ruled that the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) law, which aims to protect women and children born from live-in relationships, may not fully embrace societal acceptance. The court heard two PILs filed by social activists and a live-in couple challenging the constitutional validity of the state's UCC Act. Advocate Vrinda Grover argued that the UCC Act and its Rules enable excessive state surveillance and policing of personal choices, which fall within the ambit of the right to privacy.
Judge Manoj Kumar Tiwari questioned whether the mere requirement of relationship registration could be challenged as unconstitutional. Grover argued that the law could heighten harassment and violence against women and couples who do not conform to majoritarian norms. She also pointed out that the law grants parents and other external actors access to registrants’ personal details, enabling vigilantism. Grover argued that social morality should not override constitutional morality.
Solicitor General for India Tushar Mehta submitted that the UCC Act, 2024 does not violate the right to privacy but serves as a regulatory mechanism aimed at protecting women who are often vulnerable and face injustice. He emphasized that the statutory scheme was formulated after extensive consultations with all relevant stakeholders.
In the first PIL, the couple is in a consensual live-in relationship, and their concerns about harassment and interference have intensified with the enactment of the UCC. The plea contends that the State UCC Act, 2024, and UCC Rules, 2025 are challenged for violating fundamental rights, including privacy, dignity, decisional, associational, and reproductive autonomy. The mandatory registration, summary inquiry, and police notification provisions are argued to be unconstitutional, exposing couples to harassment, coercion, and violence.
The second PIL filed by three petitioners argued that the UCC is regressive and symbolic, failing to address structural causes of gender violence and falling short of the egalitarian vision of Article 44 of the Constitution. They highlighted the lack of procedural safeguards raises concerns about its implementation and potential misuse, risking further marginalization of vulnerable communities.
Hindusthan Samachar / Jun Sarkar
