GS Paper 2 · 15 August 2026

Rajasthan Moves Toward Uniform Civil Code: Draft UCC Bill Cleared with Live-in Relationship Provisions

The Rajasthan Cabinet has cleared a draft Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill that includes a clause for registering live-in relationships. This follows similar state-level initiatives, primarily Uttarakhand, and reignites the constitutional debate around Article 44. The move has implications for personal laws, gender justice, and the balance between uniformity and religious diversity. Legal scrutiny and possible Supreme Court challenges are expected once the Bill is tabled in the Assembly.

Why UPSC cares

Primary GS-2: Indian Constitution, Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 44), fundamental rights vs directive principles, federalism, personal laws. Secondary GS-1: Social issues, uniformity vs diversity. GS-4: Ethical dimensions of gender justice and cultural autonomy. Static connection: Laxmikanth Chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 44) and Fundamental Rights (Articles 14, 15, 25); Ramesh Singh Ch on social justice.

How to study this story

The Rajasthan Cabinet's clearance of a draft UCC Bill with live-in registration provisions is best read as a federalism question before it is a personal-law question. Article 44 is a Directive Principle, not a Fundamental Right, and the Constitution does not expressly bar states from legislating on personal law. Uttarakhand has already moved, and Rajasthan now signals that the UCC debate will be fought state by state, not only in Parliament. For the examiner, this is the core tension: can a state law on marriage, divorce, inheritance and live-in relationships survive a challenge under Articles 14, 15 and 25? The answer will turn on whether the court treats uniformity as a legitimate state interest that justifies restricting religious freedom, and whether the state has the legislative competence under Entry 5 of the Concurrent List. The live-in registration clause is the sharpest edge. Aspirants should note that the Bill is only cleared by the Cabinet; it must still be tabled and passed in the Assembly, and the Supreme Court may be approached even before it becomes law. The ethical dimension is also examinable: gender justice arguments for a UCC collide with cultural autonomy claims of minority groups. A good Mains answer will not take sides but will map the constitutional architecture: Article 44 as a non-justiciable goal, Articles 14 and 15 as justiciable equality guarantees, and Article 25 as a qualified right. The Rajasthan move is therefore not a conclusion but a new site of contestation.

The larger paper context

GS Paper 2 today is a study in institutional stress. The Supreme Court's stay on the Odisha DGP selection shows the Prakash Singh directives still being contested state by state. The CAG report on CPWD cost overruns is a reminder that financial accountability is not just about audits but about procurement design. The Rajasthan UCC draft brings Article 44 back into the federalism debate. The common thread is the tension between central directives and state discretion—a theme the Commission loves to frame as a 'discuss' question.

Probable question

Rajasthan's UCC draft with live-in relationship provisions raises the question: can a state-level UCC be constitutionally valid, or does it violate the spirit of Article 44?

Quick practice check

Q1
Consider the following statements about the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in the context of the Rajasthan draft Bill: 1. Article 44 of the Constitution makes the UCC a Fundamental Right. 2. The Rajasthan Cabinet has cleared a draft UCC Bill that includes registration of live-in relationships. 3. Only Parliament can legislate on a UCC for the whole country. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
1. 1 and 2 only
2. 2 only
3. 2 and 3 only
4. 1, 2 and 3
Show answer
Correct answer: 2 only
Statement 1 is incorrect: Article 44 is a Directive Principle of State Policy, not a Fundamental Right. Statement 2 is correct as per the source: the Rajasthan Cabinet cleared a draft UCC Bill with a live-in relationship registration clause. Statement 3 is not supported by the source; the source does not state that only Parliament can legislate on a UCC, and state-level initiatives like Uttarakhand's indicate otherwise. Therefore, only statement 2 is correct.
Q2
Which of the following constitutional provisions is most directly relevant to the debate on the Rajasthan draft UCC Bill's live-in relationship registration clause?
1. Article 14
2. Article 15
3. Article 25
4. Article 44
Show answer
Correct answer: Article 44
Article 44 directs the State to endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for citizens. The Rajasthan draft UCC Bill is a state-level initiative toward that directive. While Articles 14, 15 and 25 are also relevant to the broader debate, Article 44 is the specific constitutional provision that frames the UCC as a state objective. The source explicitly mentions Article 44 in the context of the constitutional debate.