Context

• On January 27, 2025, Uttarakhand became the first Indian state to implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC).
• While its proponents claim that it aims to promote gender justice, uniformity, and administrative efficiency, its broader implications suggest a legal framework that places personal relationships under state surveillance.
• Amid these developments, it is crucial to explore how the UCC, in conjunction with anti-conversion laws, curtails personal freedoms, strengthens patriarchal control, and institutionalizes segregation in contemporary India.

Challenges Faced by the Interfaith Relationships in India

• Interfaith marriages in India already face immense social and legal challenges.
• A 2014 survey of over 70,000 respondents revealed that fewer than 10% of urban Indians had a family member who married outside their caste, and only 5% reported interfaith marriages within their families.
• Existing laws such as the Special Marriage Act, 1954, require a 30-day public notice period, making interfaith couples vulnerable to scrutiny and harassment.
• The situation has worsened with anti-conversion laws in states like Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Rajasthan.
• These laws impose bureaucratic barriers, including mandatory declarations, waiting periods, and district magistrate approvals.
• The impact of these regulations is not just procedural but deeply social, emboldening vigilante groups linked to right-wing organisations.
• A study found that in Uttar Pradesh, 63 out of 101 police complaints filed under the anti-conversion law against Christians originated from third-party vigilante groups.
• Instead of safeguarding individual rights, these laws provide legal backing for extrajudicial policing of personal choices.

State Surveillance and the Criminalization of Live-in Relationships

• The UCC extends state control beyond formal marriages, reaching into informal relationships.
• It mandates that live-in relationships be registered with district authorities, requiring couples to submit a 16-page application along with identity proofs.
• The process includes seeking approval from religious leaders or community heads, notifying family members, and subjecting couples to scrutiny.
• Non-compliance is criminalised, carrying a penalty of up to six months of imprisonment and a ₹25,000 fine.
• Such measures disproportionately affect interfaith couples, who often seek privacy due to social pressures.
• Reports indicate that only one couple has successfully registered their live-in relationship in Uttarakhand, while others have turned to the High Court for protection.

Broader Implications:

• Empowering Religious Institutions in a Secular State
  • By requiring religious certification for marriage or conversion, the UCC formalises the authority of religious leaders over personal relationships.
  • This contradicts India's constitutional guarantees of individual freedom and secularism, reinforcing the idea that personal relationships must conform to religious and community norms rather than personal choice.
• Enhancing Familial Control Over Women
  • The legal requirement to notify families of live-in relationships places women at heightened risk of coercion, honour-based violence, and forced separation.
  • Patriarchal narratives often depict women in interfaith relationships as victims of manipulation, further limiting their agency.
  • These legal frameworks thus reinforce family and community control over women’s autonomy.
• Legitimising Vigilantism
  • Extremists’ groups now have legal avenues to monitor and intervene in interfaith relationships.
  • Public notices and family notifications allow these groups to track and harass couples, often under the pretence of upholding tradition.
  • Instead of protecting individuals, these laws provide a legal shield for extrajudicial policing, increasing communal tensions.
• A Dangerous Precedent: The Spread of the UCC Model
  • Uttarakhand’s implementation of the UCC is not an isolated incident but a potential model for other states.
  • Rajasthan’s High Court has proposed similar live-in relationship registration requirements, and the state has already enacted an anti-conversion law.
  • Gujarat is also considering a draft UCC based on Uttarakhand’s framework.
  • This trend suggests a coordinated effort to regulate personal relationships through legal mechanisms, threatening India’s pluralistic traditions.

Conclusion

• The implementation of the UCC in Uttarakhand, alongside existing anti-conversion laws, represents an unprecedented level of state interference in personal relationships.
• By bureaucratising interfaith unions, strengthening religious authority, curtailing women's freedoms, and legitimizing vigilantism, these laws erode individual rights and deepen communal divisions.
• If similar policies are adopted in other states, India risks institutionalising social segregation, undermining the very principles of democracy and personal liberty.