West Bengal is all set for Table A Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill In the Assembly, it joins a growing list of states that have sought to implement a common civil law governing personal matters.
Goa has followed the Uniform Civil Code since the Portuguese Civil Code came into force during Portuguese rule. This code was retained after Goa gained independence and merged with India in 1961. 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 UCC in 2024, followed by Gujarat and Assam in 2026. West Bengal is now ready to join this list.
Legal pluralism in personal law
The constitutional vision stems from Article 44 of the Constitution, which states that “The State shall endeavor to secure to the citizens throughout India a uniform civil code.”
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 the 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, regardless of religion, set the general minimum marriage age at 21 years for men and 18 years for women. Marriages may be solemnized as per religious ceremonies or under the Special Marriage Act. By prohibiting marriage during the existence of an existing marriage, the Codes prohibit polygamy and remove pre-existing religion-specific exceptions. Each law mandates registration of marriage, although the consequences of not registering vary.
The UCC also prohibits certain practices followed by certain sections of the Muslim community. one such tradition is Nikah HalalaUnder which a divorced woman is required to marry another man and obtain a divorce from her former husband before she can remarry. All three Codes provide that the right to remarry includes the right of the divorced spouse to remarry “without any condition such as marrying a third person before the remarriage”. Forcing or promoting such practices faces legal consequences.
Marriages within the prohibited degrees of kinship are void unless the established tradition or custom governing one of the parties permits it and such tradition is not against public policy or morality.
Couples retain the freedom to solemnize their marriage according to their religious beliefs and traditional rites (such as Saptapadi, Nikah, Anand Karaj or Ahom Chaklong Bibah). However, registration of marriage is legally mandatory in all three states.
UCC Bill ‘introduces moral policing, criminalises autonomy’
Divorce
All three states establish a uniform judicial procedure for the dissolution of marriage, explicitly declaring that no marriage can be dissolved outside the Code, thereby eliminating religion-specific procedures such as iddat or customary out-of-court divorce.
Either party can seek divorce on the same grounds, including voluntary sexual intercourse with another person, cruelty, desertion for a continuous period of two years, conversion to another religion, or incurable mental unsoundness of mind.
Wives are given additional grounds for divorce, such as where the husband is guilty of rape or unnatural sex, or where he had more than one wife from marriages contracted before the UCC came into force.
Couples can also divorce by mutual consent, provided they have been living apart for at least one year.
succession and inheritance
Before these laws came into force, inheritance depended on religion-based personal laws. Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs were governed by the Hindu Succession Act; Muslims followed largely uncodified personal law, while Christians and Parsis were governed by the Indian Succession Act.
The codes eliminate separate religious inheritance laws by imposing a single framework for intestate succession, where a person dies without leaving a will. They define the same order of precedence, starting with Class I heirs, who inherit together. Under this system, the surviving spouse, each surviving child, any branch of a predeceased child, and the surviving parents each get an equal share.
Sons and daughters inherit equally regardless of religion, removing differences that previously existed under many personal laws.
The laws do not interfere with testamentary succession. Where a valid will exists, the transfer of property occurs in accordance with the deceased’s wishes.
If a person dies without any surviving heir under the prescribed order of succession, the property passes to the government through intestate.
live-in relationship
Regulation of live-in relationships is largely uniform across Assam, Gujarat and Uttarakhand, including general legal obligations and protections.
Registration is mandatory. Partners entering into a live-in relationship must submit a statement to the designated registrar.
Live-in relationships cannot be registered if either party is a minor, is already married, is currently in another live-in relationship, or if the partners fall under prohibited degrees of relationship.
All three codes explicitly recognize every child born out of a live-in relationship as the legitimate child of the couple.
A woman abandoned by her live-in partner is entitled to approach the competent court to claim maintenance.
Failure to register a live-in relationship is a crime. Partners who cohabit for more than a month without submitting the required details can face imprisonment of up to three months, a fine of up to ₹10,000 or both.
The three Codes also outline broadly similar penalties for non-registration and related violations.
inconsistencies
In Deepika Singh vs Central Administrative Tribunal (2022), deciding a case relating to maternity leave for a woman whose husband had two children from a previous marriage, the Supreme Court expanded the traditional understanding of family. The Court held that family relationships can take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or homosexual relationships and that these expressions of family deserve equal protection under the law. The court said, “Such unusual expressions of the family unit are equally worthy not only of protection under the law but also of the benefits available under social welfare legislation. The black letter of the law should not be relied upon for disadvantageous families who are distinct from traditional families. The same undoubtedly applies to women who perform the role of motherhood in ways that do not find place in the popular imagination.”
The UCC, while seeking to unify personal laws, does not recognize these “abnormal” family structures. In X vs Principal Secretary (2022), the Supreme Court of India reiterated that unusual expressions of the family unit are equally worthy of legal protection.
In MA vs 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 his biological family. Whereas Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India (2023) did not legalize gay marriage, the Court recognized that marriage is not the only means of establishing a family. The concept of the “chosen family” is increasingly recognized in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence.
The Court, in accordance with the NALSA judgment in 2014 and the Navtej Johar judgment in 2018, recognized sexual orientation as an integral aspect of dignity, autonomy and personal liberty under Article 21. Shakti Vahini vs Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court held that the assertion of individual choice is an inalienable aspect of liberty and dignity.
However, the three UCCs do not reflect this evolving constitutional understanding of the family.
Similarly, provisions mandating mandatory registration of live-in relationships and prescribing criminal penalties for non-registration impose a legal framework on consensual adult relationships. In S Khushboo Vs Kanniammal (2010), the Supreme Court held that morality and criminality are not synonymous and that live-in relationships and premarital sex should not be linked to criminality.
The provisions criminalizing non-registration of live-in relationships raise questions in the light of this principle.
While the stated purpose of the UCC is to promote gender equality, secularism and constitutional guarantees of equal rights, many aspects of individual liberty are subject to criminal penalties and greater state regulation.
