Decoding the Uttarakhand UCC

 Someone asked me that in your piece, you argue that the Uttarakhand UCC law should be revoked. Can you provide an overview of your reasons and key concerns with this law?

In my response, I stated that 

My work on the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) https://amzn.in/d/9gVOmlz explores it from a rights-based and gender justice perspective. It is always valuable to engage critically with the law, its intent, and its impact—particularly on marginalised communities. 

I addressed this question in two parts. First, I will outline the historical and constitutional context of the UCC. Then, I will elaborate on my specific concerns regarding the Uttarakhand UCC.

---

I. The Historical and Constitutional Context of the UCC

To evaluate any law, including the UCC, it is crucial to examine its historical origins, the political conditions in which it emerged, and the vision of those who advocated for it. Law is not a neutral instrument; it can either empower citizens or be used to curtail their rights. Colonial India, for instance, witnessed the implementation of laws like sedition that were meant to suppress dissent, while post-Independence India has enacted progressive legislation like the Right to Information Act, designed to foster transparency and accountability. Thus, a critical understanding of the law requires us to ask: Who makes the law? For what purpose? Whose rights does it protect—or undermine?

In my another academic work https://riverapublications.com/article/resisting-gendered-citizenship-the-politics-of-colonialism-nationalism-and-maternalism-in-india, I have explored how, during the freedom struggle and the framing of the Indian Constitution, three forces shaped the discourse on women’s rights and citizenship: 

(1) a top-down approach followed by the colonial state and many nationalist leaders, which viewed women as belonging to their religious or community structures; 

(2) a progressive approach championed by key Indian reformers and the women’s movement, which imagined women as autonomous citizens; and 

(3) the lived experiences of women who resisted gendered forms of exclusion and demanded inclusion on equal terms.

The drafting of the Constitution was deeply informed by feminist and human rights discourses of the time. Women such as Hansa Mehta, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, and leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad advocated for a Common Civil Code not as a tool of homogenisation, but as a mechanism to ensure equality, secularism, and justice—principles enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution. The objective was to eliminate discriminatory practices, particularly those based on religion and gender, and to bring personal laws in line with constitutional morality.

However, due to the tumultuous context of Partition and the accompanying communal tensions, the Constituent Assembly decided to include the UCC not as a fundamental right but as a Directive Principle of State Policy—an aspirational goal rather than an enforceable mandate. This compromise reflected a desire to balance the demand for gender justice with the need to respect cultural and religious diversity.

Even so, women across communities have consistently approached the courts since Independence to demand reforms in personal and family laws, thereby advancing the project of gender justice incrementally and constitutionally.

---

II. Concerns with the Uttarakhand UCC

Against this historical backdrop, the recent enactment of the Uniform Civil Code in Uttarakhand raises serious concerns. When analysed through the lens of citizenship, autonomy, and constitutional rights, the current legislation reveals a deeply problematic orientation. It reflects a coercive, top-down approach that runs contrary to the vision of the Constitution-makers. My key concerns are as follows:

1. Lack of Democratic Process:
   The law has been introduced in a rushed and opaque manner, without adequate consultation with stakeholders, legal experts, civil society, or marginalised communities. Notably, the Law Commission of India in its 2018 report concluded that a UCC was neither necessary nor desirable at that stage. This hasty imposition undermines democratic deliberation and consensus-building.

2. Erosion of Women’s Rights:
   While the Code claims to promote gender justice, it does not expand women’s rights. Instead, it reinforces paternalistic narratives that depict women—particularly Muslim women—as victims in need of state protection. This approach not only infantilises women but also selectively targets certain communities under the pretext of reform, while ignoring systemic misogyny within dominant caste and religious groups.

3. Selective and Communal Framing of Justice:
   The rhetoric surrounding the law often draws upon communal tropes—such as "saving Muslim women from triple talaq" or preventing “love jihad”—while failing to address the violence and structural inequalities faced by Hindu, Muslim, Dalit, Adivasi, and other marginalised women. There is no serious attempt to challenge caste-based patriarchies or to address gender-based violence perpetrated by dominant caste men.

4. Criminalisation of Personal Autonomy:
   The law criminalises live-in relationships, regulates inter-caste and interfaith marriages, and mandates the registration of marriages. More troublingly, it links this registration to access to welfare schemes and government benefits. This effectively penalises those who choose to live outside the framework of heteronormative, state-sanctioned marriage and is a clear violation of constitutional rights to privacy, liberty, and dignity.

5. Disregard for Cultural and Legal Pluralism:
   India’s constitutional ethos is built upon unity in diversity. The Uttarakhand UCC disregards the plural legal traditions of various communities—particularly Adivasi and minority groups—and instead seeks to impose a homogenised cultural framework. Such an imposition not only undermines the rights of minorities but also deepens the trust deficit between citizens and the state.

6. State Overreach and Moral Policing:
   Rather than expanding rights, the law enhances the state’s ability to monitor and regulate the personal lives of citizens. It reflects an ideological project aimed at moral policing and cultural control, rather than genuine reform based on equality or justice.

---

Conclusion

The Uttarakhand UCC does not further the cause of gender justice or constitutional morality. It is not about Viksit Bharat, Nari Shakti, or women’s empowerment. Rather, it represents a regression—a centralised, authoritarian, and discriminatory attempt to rewrite personal law through a narrow ideological lens.

For these reasons, I believe the Uttarakhand UCC should be revoked. Instead, we need a democratic, inclusive, and rights-based process of legal reform—one that respects pluralism, advances substantive equality, and upholds the spirit of the Constitution.

Mahila Smriti not Manu Smriti

 

The current government is enforcing the Uniform Civil Code based on its idea of Manu Smriti. 

This top-down approach is coercive and imposed without democratic consultation. Driven by vested political interests, not by genuine concern for gender justice. It risks erasing religious and cultural diversity, especially affecting minority women.

 

In my work on 'Towards an Inclusive Gender Just Code in India: Women's Rights are Non-Negotiable' available at https://amzn.in/d/0IHzOSL, I countered this proposition to argue that in the 21st century, India needs Mahila Smriti not Manu Smriti

#MahilaSmritiNotManuSmriti

The bubble-up approach, which I advocate, aims for inclusive reforms led by women from diverse communities. Based on the concept of intersectionality, I focused on the real-life experiences of women across caste, class, and religion.

I proposed a new Feminist Code based on:

• Substantive equality
• Solidarity
• Respect for community rights
• Democratic consensus

In this work, I urged for the revocation of the Uttarakhand UCC, as it is undemocratic and exclusionary.

I argue that rather than a one-size-fits-all UCC, India needs pluralistic, rights-based family law reforms that:

• Uphold constitutional morality
• Are gender-just and inclusive
• Are written by and for women from all communities

 

Towards an Inclusive Gender Just Code in India: Women’s Rights are Non-Negotiable 

This book is available at Amazon 

https://amzn.in/d/gM7XgbQ 

It is regarding the Common Civil Code (the UCC) in India and argues for a feminist-led and women-led reform of personal laws. It rejects any changes that are anti-women. 

It argues that the UCC was initially introduced during the making of the Constitution to create a common legal framework for marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption with a focus on gender equality. 

While it aimed to eliminate harmful practices and promote justice, the inclusion of UCC as a fundamental right was blocked due to potential conflicts with religious freedoms, resulting in its placement as a Directive Principle of State Policy. 

In post-colonial India, family laws remain governed by diverse religious norms. These laws are different for various communities. 

However, over the years, despite difficulties, women from diverse backgrounds have increasingly sought reforms through courts. 

These women-led reforms followed the framework of intersectionality, are progressive, democratic, just, and based on their everyday realities.
Simultaneously, the dominant narrative initiated by political parties and religious leaders has politicized this debate for their vested agendas while suppressing women's voices. This top-down approach, driven by vested interests, seeks to restrict women’s rights. 

This work highlights that the current push for a UCC is coercive, unconstitutional, anti-secular, and anti-women. It forcefully imposes a discriminatory law and lacks a democratic process; therefore, refused by many.

While rejecting this arbitrary law, this work argues that to navigate the complex terrain of religious freedom and gender justice, the family law reforms should be comprehensive, inclusive, consensus-based, progressive, rights-based, uphold a person’s dignity, women-led, and should involve the consent of women from various communities it affects.

 This work suggests that the state should revoke the Uttarakhand UCC law. Instead, the state should facilitate conditions that allow women to exercise their rights through transformative constitutionalism across all communities.

The family law reforms should adhere to democratic norms, constitutional morality, transformative governance, and gender justice. 

Grounded on the concept of women’s autonomy, this work proposes to rewrite a feminist code based on feminist principles of substantive equality, solidarity, acceptability, and respect for community rights while forging unity across diversity—a feminist code written by women, of women, and for women from diverse communities.

It suggests replacing Manusmriti with Mahilasmriti.