The Uttarakhand High Court has issued notices to the Central and Uttarakhand governments, seeking their responses within six weeks on petitions challenging various provisions of the recently implemented Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in the state. A division bench comprising Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Ashish Naithani issued the notices while hearing petitions filed by Dehradun-based Almasuddin Siddiqui and Haridwar-based Ikram.
The petitioners argued that the UCC contradicts essential religious practices for Muslims, which are mandated by the Quran. Advocate Kartikey Hari Gupta, representing the petitioners, asserted, “We have pleaded before the court that the law prescribed in the Quran and its verses is an essential religious practice for every Muslim.” He further argued that the UCC interferes with these practices by prescribing civil procedures contrary to Quranic teachings.
Citing an example, Gupta stated, “The Iddat period for a divorced woman is mandatory for a Muslim woman, and by ending the same, by UCC, the religious practice of Muslims has been violated.” He also argued that the UCC violates Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of religion.
The petitioners further contended that the UCC infringes on Article 245 of the Constitution, as it operates as a state law with extra-territorial jurisdiction. Additionally, the petition challenged the mandatory registration of live-in relationships, claiming that penal provisions for non-compliance infringe on the right to privacy under Article 21.
The plea also argued that the UCC contradicts the Preamble of the Constitution by restricting liberty of faith, expression, belief, and worship. Additionally, the petition emphasized that the UCC creates “an arbitrary and artificial discrimination” by excluding Scheduled Tribes, thus failing to provide a truly uniform civil code as envisioned under Article 44 of the Constitution.
This challenge gains prominence as Uttarakhand became the first state in India to implement the UCC on January 27, 2025. The UCC mandates registration of live-in relationships and applies to residents of Uttarakhand, even those living outside the state, as well as cases where one partner is a foreign national.
Opposing the petitions, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union and State governments, argued that the UCC does not apply to Scheduled Tribes as they receive specific protection under Part XXI of the Constitution. Mehta contended that all Scheduled Tribes constitute a distinct class, thus no discrimination arises.
Addressing objections regarding the UCC's restrictions on marriages within certain prohibited degrees of relationship, Mehta argued that such marriages should be regulated by law in a “civilized society.” He emphasized that the UCC's provisions clearly define prohibited relationships, maintaining that they align with legal and social norms.
During the hearing, when petitioners' counsel argued that a Muslim man should be allowed to marry his mother’s sister’s daughter or mother’s brother’s daughter, Mehta countered, stating that the petitioners would have to establish a fundamental right for an individual to marry within these relationships. He remarked, “For the petitioners to succeed on this ground, they must establish a fundamental right for an individual to marry their sister.”
The High Court has clubbed all petitions challenging the UCC and scheduled the matter for hearing after six weeks.
Picture Source :
