A narrow code?
Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami tabled the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill in the state assembly on Tuesday with a lot of pomp and show. While the Chief Minister dubbed the occasion to be a “historic moment”, calling for a “healthy debate” in the assembly, the opposition questioned the urgency with which the Bill is being pushed through — leaving insufficient time for the opposition to prepare for a debate on the “lengthy document”. Given the fact that the UCC affects day-to-day lives of citizens, it is imperative on the part of the government to ensure a “healthy debate” on the issue in the true sense of the term. It goes without saying that the Uniform Civil Code has been a longstanding promise of the BJP, and invoking it before elections serves not just social interests but also the party’s political agenda.
Apart from the political urgency with which it is being pursued, the first draft of Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code has stirred a hornet’s nest with its overreaching and contentious content. Through its provisions, the Bill appears to treat the regulation of live-in relationships like marriages. In light of the “heinous crimes among live-in couples”, the UCC, in a bid to introduce “mental deterrence”, mandates compulsory registration of live-in relationships with the State and provides for maintenance of the woman in case she is deserted by her partner. In case of non-production of certificate of relationship, jail term of up to six months has been prescribed under the code. Furthermore, if live-in partners share any false information during the registration, they may face imprisonment for up to three months or a fine not exceeding Rs 25,000, or both.
These provisions have far-reaching implications on individual rights, and undermine the right to privacy of citizens. The Supreme Court, in the Puttaswamy case, had identified the right to privacy as an intrinsic part of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian constitution, which is a fundamental right. Furthermore, the Delhi High Court had observed that “the sphere of privacy allows persons to develop human relations without interference from the outside community or from the State”.
It is true that numerous crime cases have emerged pertaining to couples cohabiting under live-in relationships. It is the duty of the State to ensure strict enforcement of existing criminal laws to put a tab on such instances. The State cannot be expected to sneak into the private lives of individuals to hide its own failure in preventing crimes through appropriate policy interventions. It may be pointed out here that cohabitation without marriage is still a taboo in society, and Indian religious structures look at it through the lens of morality. To an extent, the ‘Hindu’ system of belief disapproves of such cohabitation. The entire concept of live-in relationship is incompatible with India’s right wing ideology and traditional beliefs. This is one of the implicit reasons that the BJP governments hold such practices antagonistic to their notion of an ideal society. This belief also largely resonates across right-wing voters. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that the states ruled by the saffron party are reportedly looking to follow the footsteps of Uttarakhand. Barring several positive measures, including providing legitimacy to a child born in live-in relationship, providing maintenance to deserted women in such relationships, etc., the Bill is a disappointing piece of legislation, requiring significant modifications.
