UCC Bill: Panel's report begins with rejection of 'Andha Kanoon'

The key to Uttarakhand's UCC bill is the still-under-wraps panel report, which explains the rationale for the code. The report sets the tone and agenda right on its cover and with its opening words.

The four-volume report cover has changed the very depiction of the famous 'Lady Justice', showing her with scales and law books sans the characteristic blindfold over her eyes. The report opens with a Hindi couplet, which expresses Lady Justice's lament over the unjust state of affairs and the reasons for her to discard her blindfold.

ET gathers that the verse holds forth that her blindfold - actually a symbol of impartiality - was read as a sign of weakness and silence even in the wake of unjust actions around. She chooses now, according to the opening couplet, to discard this "blindness" and with it the infamous sobriquet of "andha kanoon" to ensure "equal justice" to all. The two together indicate the panel's proposed new legal approach on achieving "equality through uniformity."


The four-volume report penned by the five-member panel chaired by former Supreme Court judge Ranjana Desai includes the code tabled in the state assembly and two other major components. A whole volume is dedicated to explaining constitutional provisions and judicial pronouncements on the basis of which the panel has drafted the report.

Another volume puts together feedback and consultations held with public and other stakeholders. The report is learnt to indicate strong public support for polygamy ban, equal property rights for women across religions as well as for mechanisms to bring in checks for live-in relationships.

What's left out
ET had reported earlier that there was considerable feedback on the need for "reverse inheritance" or mandating a kind of "maintenance" of ageing/destitute parents by adult earning children. Although Uttarakhand is home to many from the armed forces and there have been cases of all benefits going to the wife of a slain son, leaving parents in a financially precarious situation, the report and final code has dropped this and left it to the government to formulate another rulebook to enable the same.

Taking cue from the recent Supreme Court order on same-sex unions, the final report has also stayed clear of the same though that was the original scheme of things. The final code has restricted itself to the gender-specific "wife/husband" binary.

The Bill defines “spouse” as “either husband or wife in a marriage.” Similarly, “parties to a marriage” are categorically defined as “a man and a woman between whom the marriage has been solemnised/contracted.”

Even a ‘live-in relationship’ has been defined as a household shared between “a man and a woman,” effectively closing all public and legal recognition/endorsement of same-sex relationships.

Similarly, there was strong public feedback on the need for a population control law. The UCC panel, however, now stays silent on this.

The issue of doing away with coparcenary rights for Hindu male heirs under the Hindu Undivided Family mechanism provided under the income tax laws has been dropped completely on the grounds that it is restricted to tax provisions under a central law.

The consideration for raising the marriageable age for women from 18 to 21 years was also debated right to the end but ultimately kept out.