Prude & Prejudice: UCC For The 21st Century, Not The 19th

India is a young country. Over half its population is under 30, and this generation’s approach to relationships, marriage and personal choices is markedly different from that of previous ones. Non-marital cohabitation is not a new phenomenon in India. It has existed in different forms across communities and regions for centuries, often unacknowledged by formal legal structures. The judiciary has repeatedly recognised the rights of consenting adults to live together, regardless of marital status. The Supreme Court has affirmed that live-in relationships are protected under the right to life and personal liberty, yet the Uttarakhand UCC seems intent on undoing these hard-won freedoms.

The mandatory registration of live-in relationships is deeply problematic. It introduces an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy into personal choices, treating adults as if they need state permission to cohabit. Why should their ability to choose a life partner — whether in marriage or otherwise —be subject to state control? Moreover, penalising non-compliance with fines and potential imprisonment moves the law from governance into overt coercion.

This overreach extends beyond the couples themselves. Landlords are now expected to collect details about their tenants' past relationships, a ludicrous invasion of privacy that turns private citizens into informants. Religious leaders, too, have been tasked with verifying whether marriages comply with religious customs — an ironic contradiction in a law that claims to be 'uniform' and not religion-specific. If the UCC is meant to be secular and progressive, why does it reinforce religious oversight instead of dismantling it?

Enforcing this law presents serious challenges. How does the state plan to ensure compliance without infringing on privacy? Will officials have the authority to inspect private residences to verify cohabitation status? The lack of clarity on surveillance mechanisms is deeply concerning. In a country where moral policing and vigilante actions already threaten personal freedoms, this law risks becoming yet another tool for those seeking to control private lives.

If a UCC is to achieve its intended purpose of legal clarity and social harmony, it must align with the lived realities of citizens rather than impose outdated moral frameworks. A truly progressive legal system evolves with society, acknowledging change rather than resisting it.

At its core, this version of the UCC fails the fundamental test of uniformity: it does not treat all citizens equally. Same-sex relationships find no mention in the law. By framing live-in relationships as exclusively between a man and a woman "in the nature of marriage", the law refuses to acknowledge the diversity of modern relationships. The implicit assumption is that a live-in relationship is merely a stepping stone to marriage, rather than a legitimate form of partnership in itself. This is a misplaced notion, particularly in an era where marriage itself is being redefined across the world.

The state must have laws that protect individual rights without imposing state control over personal choices. It should provide gender-neutral legal protections for all relationships, recognising diverse partnerships, including same-sex ones, while ensuring fairness in matters like property and inheritance. For a UCC to serve its purpose, it must not perpetuate regressive practices or infringe upon fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

One cannot legislate morality, nor should the state attempt to dictate the personal choices of consenting adults. It is not the government's role to enforce social conservatism under the garb of legal uniformity. If the courts take up a constitutional challenge to this law, will they reaffirm that the right to personal liberty cannot be subject to the whims of shifting moral standards ?