Uttarakhand proposes amendments to UCC: What could change, why | Explained News

The live-in registration only applies to heterosexual relationships. It also specifies certain groups that are prohibited from entering such a relationship, like in the case of marriage. The Uttarakhand UCC mentions 74 prohibited relationships for marriage, including first cousins. Additionally, the law states that one cannot enter a live-in relationship with a person who is already married or in another live-in relationship.

Proposed changes addressing the concerns

Some clauses of the UCC rules, implemented in January this year, have been changed, especially following the contestation by petitioners at the High Court. Senior advocate Vrinda Grover had challenged provisions of the UCC, stating that the UCC Act, rules, and forms set up a legal regime intruding into the personal sphere with surveillance and policing. “Every information… is immediately sent to the local police station. In this country, why should my information be with the local police?” she said.

This has also found mention in the amendment. The state government states in its changed code, “It shall be the responsibility of the Registrar, officer-in-charge of the local police station, and the district Superintendent of Police to ensure the privacy of the information contained therewith.”

In the original rules, the state had mandated the details of the registered couple to be kept in the local police station for “record keeping”.

Disclosure of child born at the time of termination of live-in

Another change has been made regarding the disclosure of information related to children born in live-in relationships. Grover had raised this, stating that though the intention is to ascertain the legitimacy of the child, the information is private and cannot go into the hands of public authorities and police.  “We are going to create a situation where women will be worse off. They will be subjected to social humiliation every day,” she said.

To this, the Bench of Justice Manoj Tiwari and Ashish Naithani asked what her suggestions were. “Were your suggestions invited while the law was being drafted? Mr SG, can you invite suggestions afresh? You can consider wherever changes are needed, and can we incorporate it? You can impress upon the state legislature to bring about necessary (changes),” it said.

The state has now scrapped this from the rules. Details of any child expected or that exists from the relationship need not be mentioned at the time of termination. In the original rules, if at the time of submitting the statement of termination, it is known that the “woman live-in partner” is pregnant, it will be obligatory to inform the Registrar about the same. As per original rules, if a child/children is/are born to the partners after the termination of their live-in relationship, the same shall be updated within thirty days from the date of issuance of the birth certificate(s). This has been removed from the proposed amendment draft.

However, existing laws already address this. Section 16(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act states that “notwithstanding that a marriage is null and void,” under the Act, “any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate.”

Aadhaar-based authentication

The petitions had challenged the provisions mandating Aadhaar-based authentication for every registration, including for witnesses in marriages and inheritance. The petitioners had argued that this was violative of the K S Puttaswamy judgment.

Another petition, argued by Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court Raju Ramachandran, stated that provisions, including compulsory registration through Aadhaar, the empowerment of the registrars, notice on non-registration of live-in relationships, and offences for non-registration, should be looked into.

The original code has been changed in every section to dispense with this aspect. Along with Aadhaar, other proof of identity is also acceptable. In fact, the amended sections have removed clauses which earlier mandated registration through the mobile number linked with the Aadhaar card.

“The first step for online registration of marriage/acknowledgement (or live-in) procedure…enter her/his Aadhaar number, verify through OTP on Aadhaar-linked mobile number…For all future processes, the Aadhaar number will be the user identification number for the registrant,” the code had said, which now is proposed to be scrapped. Wherever a mobile number is asked to be furnished, its linking with Aadhaar has been made non-obligatory.

Authority of Registrar relaxed

The duties of the Registrar have been amended to slacken the authority he holds, including to make summary enquiries and take action against sub-registrars for “inaction”. Though the registrants are asked to furnish details of parents or legal guardians of those under 21, the Registrar, who earlier had to inform the parents of the registration, no longer wields this power.

The sub-registrar’s power to initiate a summary enquiry has also been diluted to avoid an arbitrary investigation into the veracity of details provided in applications. Similarly, documents from religious leaders in case of prohibited relationships are necessary to be furnished, but the registrar cannot conduct a summary inquiry by contacting these religious heads, as submitted by the registrants.

The original rules had given the registrar authority to conduct his own assessment by checking with religious leaders without disclosing identity to ascertain if identical relationships that might fall under the categories of prohibited relationships are permissible, but this has been revoked.

Another option for issuing provisional certificates, valid for 30 days, has been revoked. The proposed amendment states that the application is either answered with a registration certificate or a rejection letter. The Registrar cannot check the veracity of the names, phone numbers/email id/addresses of the registrants or parents or religious leaders/community heads in the statement submitted by the registrants.

The Registrar’s authority to check the veracity of the details of the landlord, a copy of the rent agreement and the tenant verification number provided by the registrants before issuing the certificate of registration of live-in relationships has also been abrogated.

Supporting documents made optional

The proposed rules say supporting documents at the time of registration of live-in relationships “may be” submitted. While the rules mandate proof of child, previous relationship (divorce decree, nullity of terminated live-in), and proof of permissibility of marriage from religious leaders if the registrants are within the categories of prohibited relationships, the details on shared household that had earlier asked for owner’s name and details along with that of the relationship between tenant and the owner, if living in own property, has been made discretionary.

Caste details of the registrants have been done away with. The proposed draft also axes the proof of employees of the state/central government and beneficiaries of state/centre schemes that were earlier in existence. Punishment for those filing “false complaints” has been done away with.

Prior amendments

Earlier, the state government had passed an amendment in the Assembly to align the provisions under BNS with those of the UCC. Under section 17 of the Act, violations in the form of non-registration or submission of a false memorandum were punishable up to three months and a fine of Rs 25,000 or both. This has now been changed to comply with the BNS provisions.

For live-in relationships, if one of the partners is a minor, it shall be punished with a term of up to six months and a fine of up to Rs 50,000. Those who marry another person after the commencement of the Code while having a spouse shall be punishable under the BNS, 2023. Those who are in a live-in relationship while being married to another will also face a jail term of seven years. If the consent of a person for marriage is by force, coercion or fraud, it shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term extending to seven years and shall also be liable to a fine.