Madhya Pradesh's UCC draft proposes registration of live-in couples
A government-appointed committee, headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, submitted its final Uniform Civil Code (UCC) draft to the state government on 13 July 2026.
The draft bill runs to four parts, 404 sections, and seven schedules, and proposes making registration of live-in relationships mandatory, with penalties for couples who fail to register or to formally cancel a registration when the relationship ends.
Parents of persons in a registered live-in relationship are proposed to be informed of the registration.
The draft revises inheritance rules so that both parents (not only the mother, as under some existing personal laws) can inherit as legal heirs of a deceased son's property.
The draft proposes to keep the state's Scheduled Tribe population, which forms roughly a fifth of Madhya Pradesh's population, outside the code's purview at this stage; a bill is expected to be tabled in the state assembly after cabinet approval, likely in the upcoming monsoon session.
Uniform Civil Code and Article 44
Article 44, a Directive Principle of State Policy under Part IV of the Constitution, directs the State to "endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India." Being a DPSP, it is non-justiciable (not enforceable in court) under Article 37, but courts have repeatedly urged its implementation, including in cases such as Shah Bano (1985) and Sarla Mudgal (1995).
Key Details
- UCC would replace religion-based personal laws (marriage, divorce, succession, adoption, maintenance) with a common civil code applicable to all citizens.
- Goa is the only Indian state with an existing uniform civil code, inherited from the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867; the Supreme Court in John Vallamattom v. Union of India (2003) cited it as a working example of a UCC.
- Uttarakhand became the first state to enact and implement a full UCC statute (passed February 2024, notified March 2024, in force from 27 January 2025), which similarly mandates registration of live-in relationships within one month, with penalties including imprisonment for non-registration.
- UCC falls under the Concurrent List (List III), allowing both Parliament and state legislatures to legislate on it, subject to the repugnancy rule under Article 254.
Madhya Pradesh's draft follows Uttarakhand's precedent of using state-level legislative competence to enact a UCC ahead of any central law, and closely mirrors Uttarakhand's live-in registration mechanism.
Scheduled Tribes and Exemption from Personal Law Reform
Article 366(25) defines Scheduled Tribes, and Article 342 empowers the President to specify STs for a state. Tribal communities are traditionally governed by customary law protected under provisions such as the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, and Article 13 exempts certain personal/customary laws from being tested against Part III's fundamental rights in some contexts, making blanket application of a UCC to tribal communities constitutionally and politically sensitive.
Key Details
- Uttarakhand's UCC (2024) also excluded Scheduled Tribes from its ambit, citing protection of customary practices.
- The Fifth Schedule (for tribal areas in most states) and Sixth Schedule (for tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram) both provide for customary law and land protections that a uniform code could otherwise override.
- Madhya Pradesh's Scheduled Tribes form about 21% of the state's population, among the highest tribal shares of any major state.
The draft's exclusion of tribal populations, and the fact that tribal communities were kept outside the consultation process, reflects this constitutional carve-out logic already used in Uttarakhand's UCC.
Legal Status of Live-In Relationships
Indian law does not prohibit live-in relationships between consenting adults, and the Supreme Court has extended certain protections to such relationships without treating them as equivalent to marriage. In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the Court held that a live-in relationship qualifies as a "relationship in the nature of marriage" (and thus a "domestic relationship") under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 only if it satisfies specific criteria.
Key Details
- Criteria from Indra Sarma include long-term cohabitation, a shared household, financial interdependence, intention to live as spouses, and social recognition as a couple.
- In that case, relief was denied because the male partner's earlier marriage was still subsisting, and Hindu law mandates monogamy under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Earlier, in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), the Supreme Court held that live-in relationships fall within the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and are not illegal.
- State-level UCC drafts (Uttarakhand, and now Madhya Pradesh's proposal) go further by making registration compulsory with statutory penalties, converting a previously judicially-recognised but informal status into a formal, state-tracked category.
The MP draft's mandatory registration and penalty regime is a significant departure from the earlier judicial approach, which recognised live-in relationships case-by-case rather than requiring universal registration.
- Draft submitted: 13 July 2026, by a panel headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.
- Draft structure: 4 parts, 404 sections, 7 schedules.
- Scheduled Tribes form about 21% of Madhya Pradesh's population and are proposed to be excluded from the code.
- Uttarakhand's UCC (in force since 27 January 2025) is the only comparable state law currently operational in India and mandates live-in registration within one month of the relationship beginning, with penalties up to six months' imprisonment for non-compliance.