West Bengal is all set to table a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill in the Assembly, joining a growing list of States that have sought to enact a common civil law governing personal matters.
Goa has followed a Uniform Civil Code since the Portuguese Civil Code was introduced during Portuguese rule. After Goa was liberated and merged with India in 1961, the Code was retained. It governs all residents of Goa in matters of marriage, divorce and inheritance, regardless of religion. However, after Independence, Uttarakhand became the first State to implement a UCC in 2024, followed by Gujarat and Assam in 2026. West Bengal is now set to join the list.
Legal pluralism in personal law
The constitutional vision stems from Article 44 of the Constitution, which states that “The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a Uniform Civil Code throughout the territory of India.”
The UCCs largely regulate four areas of personal law: marriage, divorce, succession and inheritance, and live-in relationships. These laws apply to all residents of the respective States except Scheduled Tribes (within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 read with Article 342 of the Constitution), whose customary laws are protected under the Constitution.
Marriage
All three UCCs prescribe a common minimum marriage age of 21 years for men and 18 years for women, irrespective of religion. Marriages may be solemnised according to religious ceremonies or under the Special Marriage Act. By prohibiting marriage during the subsistence of an existing marriage, the Codes prohibit polygamy and remove religion-specific exceptions that previously existed. Each law makes registration of marriages compulsory, though the consequences for failing to register differ.
The UCCs also prohibit certain practices followed by sections of the Muslim community. One such practice is nikah halala, which requires a divorced woman to marry another man and obtain a divorce before remarrying her former husband. All three Codes provide that the right to remarry includes the right to remarry a divorced spouse “without any condition, such as marrying a third person before such remarriage”. Forcing or abetting such practices attracts legal consequences.
Marriages within prohibited degrees of relationship are invalid unless an established custom or usage governing one of the parties permits it and such custom is not against public policy or morality.
Couples retain the freedom to solemnise their marriage according to their religious beliefs and customary rites (such as Saptapadi, Nikah, Anand Karaj or Ahom Chaklong Bibah). However, registration of the marriage is legally compulsory across all three States.
UCC Bill ‘introduces moral policing, criminalises autonomy’
Divorce
The three States establish a uniform judicial process for the dissolution of marriage, explicitly declaring that no marriage can be dissolved outside the Code, thereby overriding religion-specific procedures such as iddat or customary out-of-court divorces.
Either party may seek divorce on identical grounds, including voluntary sexual intercourse with another person, cruelty, desertion for a continuous period of two years, conversion to another religion, or incurable unsoundness of mind.
Wives are granted additional grounds for divorce, such as where the husband is guilty of rape or an unnatural sexual offence, or where he had more than one wife from marriages contracted before the UCC came into force.
Couples may also seek divorce by mutual consent, provided they have lived separately for at least one year.
Succession and inheritance
Before the introduction of these laws, inheritance depended on religion-based personal laws. Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs were governed by the Hindu Succession Act; Muslims largely followed uncodified personal law, while Christians and Parsis were governed by the Indian Succession Act.
The Codes abolish differing religious inheritance laws by implementing a single framework for intestate succession, where a person dies without leaving a will. They define an identical order of preference beginning with Class I heirs, who inherit simultaneously. Under this system, the surviving spouse(s), every surviving child, the branch of any predeceased child and the surviving parents each receive an equal share.
Sons and daughters inherit equally irrespective of religion, removing differences that previously existed under several personal laws.
The laws do not interfere with testamentary succession. Where a valid will exists, property continues to devolve according to the wishes of the deceased.
If a person dies without any surviving heirs under the prescribed order of succession, the estate devolves upon the Government by way of escheat.
Live-in relationships
The regulation of live-in relationships is largely uniform across Assam, Gujarat and Uttarakhand, introducing common legal obligations and protections.
Registration is mandatory. Partners entering a live-in relationship must submit a statement to the designated Registrar.
A live-in relationship cannot be registered if either party is a minor, already married, currently in another live-in relationship, or if the partners fall within prohibited degrees of relationship.
All three Codes explicitly recognise every child born out of a live-in relationship as the legitimate child of the couple.
A woman deserted by her live-in partner is entitled to approach the competent court to claim maintenance.
Failure to register a live-in relationship constitutes an offence. Partners who cohabit for more than one month without submitting the required statement may face imprisonment for up to three months, a fine of up to ₹10,000, or both.
The three Codes also prescribe a broadly similar penalty framework for non-registration and related violations.
The anomalies
In Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal(2022), while deciding a case concerning maternity leave for a woman whose husband had two children from a previous marriage, the Supreme Court expanded the traditional understanding of the family. The Court observed that familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships, and that these manifestations of family are equally deserving of protection under law. The court observed, “Such atypical manifestations of the family unit are equally deserving not only of protection under law but also of the benefits available under social welfare legislation. The black letter of the law must not be relied upon to disadvantage families which are different from traditional ones. The same undoubtedly holds for women who take on the role of motherhood in ways that may not find a place in the popular imagination.”
The UCCs, while seeking to unify personal laws, do not recognise these “atypical” family structures. In X v. The Principal Secretary (2022), the Supreme Court of India reiterated that atypical manifestations of the family unit are equally deserving of legal protection.
In M.A. v. Superintendent of Police (2025), the Madras High Court relied on these Supreme Court decisions while dealing with a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman whose same-sex partner was allegedly confined by her biological family. While Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India(2023) did not legalise same-sex marriage, the Court acknowledged that marriage is not the sole means of founding a family. The concept of a “chosen family” has increasingly found recognition in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence.
The Court, according to the NALSA judgment in 2014 and the Navtej Johar judgment in 2018, recognised sexual orientation as an integral aspect of dignity, autonomy and personal liberty under Article 21. Similarly, in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India(2018), the Supreme Court held that the assertion of individual choice is an inseparable facet of liberty and dignity.
The three UCCs, however, do not reflect this evolving constitutional understanding of family.
Similarly, the provisions mandating compulsory registration of live-in relationships and prescribing criminal penalties for non-registration impose a legal framework on consensual adult relationships. In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), the Supreme Court held that morality and criminality are not synonymous and that live-in relationships and premarital sex should not be associated with criminality.
The provisions criminalising the non-registration of live-in relationships raise questions in light of this principle.
While the stated objective of the UCCs is to promote gender equality, secularism and the constitutional guarantee of equal rights, several aspects of personal liberty continue to be subjected to criminal penalties and greater State regulation.
