When power impedes the exercise of autonomy

The state of Uttarakhand has implemented a Uniform Civil Code that covers partnerships, inheritance, marriage, and divorce. All denominations will be covered by it, with the exception of Adivasis. Goa had a UCC before to the state’s introduction after India’s independence, but it was put into place in 1867 when the region was ruled by the Portuguese.

President Droupadi Murmu would almost definitely accept Uttarakhand’s UCC, since she was recorded last year praising Goa’s current code. The UCC will then become law.

Whether in force for the whole country, a single state, a union territory, or both, uniform civil codes are very divisive because, despite their stated support for equality and secularism, they are very likely to be exploited to deny rights to minorities. Although minority in religion and culture have legitimate concerns, persecution may also happen in a number of other ways. The new UCC in Uttarakhand specifically targets cohabiting couples. Following an inquiry procedure, couples must formally register their status as cohabitators and deregister their relationship should it cease. Even if the person in such a relationship may already be an adult with other rights of age-majority, such as the ability to vote, own property, and be married, parents or guardians will be notified if the person is under the age of 21.

This has been somewhat contentious, and for good reason—the UCC restricts individual liberty and choice. It obfuscates while acting in the name of safety, particularly women’s safety. It simply aims to put decisions made outside of marriage—an institution that is historically and statistically risky for women—under the jurisdiction of the state. Legislators and others who really care about women’s safety in intimate relationships would focus more on marriage and its complexities than on aggressively policing more ambiguous types of partnerships.

Even if the UCC presumably addresses marriage and divorce in other contexts as well, such as by outlawing polygamy, there are still additional impacted areas where repression and harassment might creep in covertly. Thankfully, the primary talking point this time around is what may have been fine print.

Couple’s picture used only for representational reasons
Legal professionals see the Uttarakhand UCC on cohabitation as a privacy infringement.
This UCC will probably serve as a model for others, maybe even one at the federal level, which has long been anticipated and has always unnerved progressives. The Uttarakhand UCC’s view on cohabitation reveals a lack of knowledge of what cohabitation is, why individuals choose it over marriage, and its importance in a healthy community.

Not only does it criminalize love and pleasure, but it also punishes autonomy within the framework of personal liberties and formalizes relationships that are purposefully informal. It will be used against LGBTQ+ couples, interfaith couples, intercaste couples, singles who choose to share domesticity but are not partners, people who leave abusive homes behind, and even—possibly to their own dismay—those who fit neatly into a variety of privilege markers but opt out of marriage. People will be coerced into following paths against their will with it. Despite its security, a cage is never really safe.