How similar are Uttarakhand, Gujarat and Assam’s Uniform Civil Codes?

The push for a Uniform Civil Code stems from Article 44 under the Directive Principles of State Policy, which urges the state to secure a UCC for citizens. The recent state-level laws (Uttarakhand's enacted, Assam and Gujarat's pending) unify personal laws regarding marriage age (21 for men, 18 for women), prohibit polygamy, and standardize divorce and inheritance, superseding religion-specific laws like the Hindu Succession Act and uncodified Muslim personal law. Notably, these codes exempt Scheduled Tribes (under Article 366 and Article 342) to protect customary laws. This creates an interesting federal dynamic, as personal law is in the Concurrent List (Entry 5), allowing states to legislate, provided they receive Presidential assent to override central laws. UPSC often asks about the balance between the directive principle of Article 44 and the fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 25.

The implementation of these UCCs significantly impacts social structures, particularly regarding gender equality and women's empowerment. By abolishing practices like polygamy and nikah halala, and establishing equal inheritance rights for sons and daughters irrespective of religion, the codes address historical gender disparities within personal laws. The mandatory registration of live-in relationships, while aiming to protect women (e.g., enabling claims for maintenance if deserted), is viewed by some critics as moral policing and an infringement on autonomy. Furthermore, the codes strictly define marriage and family in traditional terms, ignoring the concept of legal pluralism where different communities follow distinct customs.

A critical tension highlighted in the article is the gap between these new statutory UCCs and the evolving jurisprudence of the Supreme Court regarding family structures. In rulings like Deepika Singh v. CAT and the Navtej Johar judgment, the Court recognized that families take "atypical manifestations" (like unmarried partnerships or queer relationships) which deserve legal protection, emphasizing autonomy and personal liberty under Article 21. By failing to recognize same-sex couples or non-traditional family units, the state-level UCCs appear misaligned with this progressive judicial interpretation of fundamental rights. This raises questions about the inclusivity of the proposed civil codes and whether they truly reflect a uniform application of rights for all citizens, including the LGBTQIA+ community.