DEHRADUN: The Uttarakhand high court has issued notices to the Centre and the state govt, directing them to respond within six weeks, while hearing public interest litigations challenging the provisions of the Uniform Civil Code that came into effect in the state last month. Among other submissions, the petitioners have claimed that the Act discriminates against Muslims.
The PILs were filed by actor Nawazuddin Siddiqui’s Dehradun-based brother Elmashuddin, Suresh Singh Negi from Bhimtal, and Ikram from Haridwar. They argued that the Act is “discriminatory in nature since it takes away the customs and usage of the Muslim community by providing for restrictions to marry in ‘degrees of prohibited relationship’ as defined in the UCC”. They added that in the Muslim community, these restrictions do not exist and that marriage among relatives is permissible.
Marriages among close kin should be barred in any civilised society: SG
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing virtually for the state government, pointed to the bench that Schedule 1 and 2 of the code, which define “degrees of prohibited relationships”, include relationships such as mother, stepmother, daughter, son’s widow, and other close relatives. He said, “Such marriages among close relatives should be regulated by law and prohibited in any civilised society.”
When the petitioners’ lawyer, Kartikey Hari Gupta, contended that there should be no objection to permitting a Muslim man to marry his mother’s sister’s daughter or mother’s brother’s daughter, Mehta responded, “For the petitioner to succeed on this ground, he will have to show a fundamental right of any individual to marry his sister, failing which he cannot challenge such a provision which is required in any civilised society.”
The division bench consolidated two additional petitions challenging UCC on different grounds with this case and scheduled the matter for a hearing after six weeks. While Bhimtal resident and former student representative Suresh Singh Negi’s PIL challenges numerous provisions of UCC, particularly those concerning live-in relationships, another PIL by Aarushi Gupta disputes the provisions related to marriage, divorce, and live-in relationships, asserting that they violate citizens’ fundamental rights.
The petitioners contested the mandatory registration of live-in relationships and the penal provisions for non-compliance, maintaining these requirements breach Right to Privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Mehta argued, “Experience has shown that having lived in live-in relationships without any commitment, which results only from marriage, generally, the man deserts the woman, leaving her destitute and leaving the children born out of such relationships illegitimate.”
He added that the code does not prohibit live-in relationships but regulates them by requiring registration. “On such a registration, the child born out of such a live-in relationship is considered under UCC to be a legitimate child, and the deserted woman is given a right to approach the competent court seeking maintenance for herself and her child,” Mehta said. On the petitioners’ contention that the Act is discriminatory since it exempts people belonging to Scheduled Tribe, the SG said, “Uniform Civil Code is not made applicable to the persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes in view of the specific protection granted in Part XXI of the Constitution and all Scheduled Tribes within the meaning of Clause 25 of Article 366 read with Article 342 form a separate class. Therefore, there is no discrimination.”