Recently,  Uttarakhand became the first Indian State to implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), placing private relationships under state surveillance.

Challenges Faced by Interfaith Relationships in India

• Social Barriers: Interfaith marriages already face significant opposition in India. A 2014 survey (70,000 respondents) found:
  • Less than 10% of urban Indians had a family member who married outside their caste. Only 5% reported interfaith marriages in their families.
• Legal Hurdles:  The Special Marriage Act, 1954, requires a 30-day public notice period, making interfaith couples vulnerable to scrutiny and harassment.
  • Anti-conversion laws in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Rajasthan have worsened the situation.
• Bureaucratic Barrier: These laws create bureaucratic barriers, including:
  • Mandatory declarations of conversion.
  • Waiting periods for approval.
  • District magistrate oversight, increasing state control over personal choices.
• Vigilante Involvement: These laws have emboldened vigilante groups, often linked to right-wing organisations. A study in Uttar Pradesh found:
  • 63 out of 101 police complaints under the anti-conversion law against Christians came from third-party vigilante groups.
• Legal Cover: Instead of protecting individual rights, these laws provide legal cover for extrajudicial policing of personal relationships.

Implications of the UCC

• State Control: The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) extends state regulation beyond formal marriages to include informal relationships. Live-in relationships must now be registered with district authorities.
• Registration Requirements: Couples must submit a 16-page application along with identity proofs (e.g., Aadhaar, residence documents). 
  • Approval is required from religious leaders or community heads. 
  • Families must be notified, exposing couples to social scrutiny and pressure.
• Non-Compliance: Failure to register is punishable by:
  • Up to six months of imprisonment.
  • A ₹25,000 fine.
• Disproportionate Impact: Many interfaith couples prefer privacy due to social stigma and threats. Reports indicate:
  • Only one couple has successfully registered their live-in relationship in Uttarakhand.
  • Others have approached the High Court seeking protection from harassment.
• Empowering Religious Institutions: Marriage and conversion now require religious certification, giving formal authority to religious leaders over personal relationships.
• Contradictory: This contradicts India’s constitutional principles of secularism and individual freedom. It reinforces societal norms over personal choice, limiting autonomy in relationships.
• Familial Control: Mandatory family notifications in live-in relationships increase risks of:
  • Coercion
  • Honour-based violence
  • Forced separation
• Undermining Autonomy: Patriarchal narratives frame women in interfaith relationships as victims, undermining their agency and autonomy.
  • These laws strengthen family and community control over women’s choices.
• Legitimising Vigilantism: Extremist groups gain legal backing to monitor and intervene in interfaith relationships. 
  • Public notices and family notifications provide tools for harassment and extrajudicial policing. 
  • Instead of protecting individuals, these laws fuel communal tensions under the guise of tradition.
• Spread of the UCC Model: Uttarakhand’s UCC sets a blueprint for other states. Rajasthan High Court has proposed similar live-in registration requirements and enacted an anti-conversion law. 
  • Gujarat is considering a UCC draft modeled on Uttarakhand’s framework.

Conclusion

Love and faith are deeply personal experiences that individuals define on their own terms. These legal changes not only infringe on individual rights but also undermine the fabric of India’s pluralistic society.

DOWNLOAD PDF