Assam introduces UCC bill banning polygamy, regulating live-in relationships.
Assam UCC bill excludes Scheduled Tribes from proposed regulations.
Guwahati — The Assam government on Monday introduced a sweeping Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill in the state assembly that would ban polygamy and make registration of live‑in relationships compulsory, setting off immediate debate across party lines and among community leaders.
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Atul Bora presented ‘The Uniform Civil Code, Assam, 2026 Bill’ on behalf of Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. In the Bill’s ‘Statement of Object and Reasons,’ Sarma framed the measure as an attempt to “consolidate and simplify laws governing marriage, divorce, succession, and live‑in relationships,” arguing that a common civil framework would bring legal clarity and equal protection to all citizens.
Key provisions spell out minimum ages for marriage — 21 years for men and 18 for women — and an explicit prohibition on polygamy. For the first time, Assam’s proposed law lays down a formal legal regime for live‑in relationships: partners would be required to register their unions, ensuring the rights of both adults and any children born of such relationships are legally recognised and protected, the Chief Minister said.
Those promises of clarity were not enough to quiet opposition. Parties across the floor — including the Congress, Raijor Dal and the Trinamool Congress — raised objections within hours of the Bill’s tabling, calling for wider consultations with stakeholders before the state moves forward. Opposition leaders argued the Bill’s social and legal implications are too far‑reaching to be rushed through without extensive public debate, and warned of unintended consequences for religious freedom and customary practices.
“Their stated intent is reform, but the method matters,” a Congress spokesperson said, calling for hearings with civil society groups, women’s organisations, religious bodies and tribal representatives. Raijor Dal lawmakers urged sensitivity to Assam’s plural social fabric, while the Trinamool said the government should pause to build consensus.
Assam’s draft includes an important carve‑out: it will not apply to any of the Scheduled Tribes residing in the state. That exemption acknowledges Assam’s diverse demography and the constitutional protections afforded to tribal customs. Still, even this clause did little to calm anxieties among some minority communities that fear the broader imposition of a uniform code could erode religiously rooted personal laws.
Supporters of the Bill, mainly within the ruling BJP and allied circles, hailed it as progressive and necessary. They argued that banning polygamy and creating a legal framework for live‑in relationships would protect vulnerable partners, curb exploitation, and bring Assam in line with modern civil norms. “A legal uniformity will reduce ambiguity, accelerate dispute resolution and protect women and children,” one government advisor said on condition of anonymity.
The Assam move follows similar efforts elsewhere. Gujarat’s assembly earlier this year passed its own UCC Bill on March 24, establishing common rules for marriage, divorce, succession and live‑in relationships irrespective of religion. Gujarat’s law includes strict penalties — up to seven years in jail for marriages conducted by force, coercion or fraud — prohibits bigamy, and mandates registration of marriages and live‑in relationships. The Gujarat Bill drew praise from BJP leaders as a landmark step toward equality but provoked a sharp backlash from the Congress, which called it “anti‑Muslim” and unconstitutional.
Legal experts note that UCC debates are rarely only about law; they are deeply political and social. “A Uniform Civil Code touches the core of identity, faith and personal law,” said a constitutional scholar at a local university.
Women’s rights activists offered mixed reactions. Some welcomed measures that could prevent polygamous marriages and ensure legal recognition for children of informal unions, arguing such rules would improve access to maintenance, inheritance and social security. Others cautioned that mandatory registration of live‑in relationships could stigmatise certain couples, lead to intrusive state oversight of private lives, or criminalise vulnerable people unaware of the new requirements.
For ordinary people in Assam, the Bill raises practical questions: how will registration work in remote areas, and will the state provide accessible legal aid? What happens to existing marriages solemnised under religious law? How will courts interpret conflicts between the new code and constitutional protections? Implementation — not merely drafting — will determine whether the Bill strengthens rights or creates fresh legal burdens.
The Assembly debate is expected to continue in coming weeks, with the government urging quick passage and opposition parties demanding more consultations. Whatever the immediate legislative outcome, the Assam Bill has already thrust the sensitive issue of a Uniform Civil Code back into public view, highlighting the complex balance between reform, religious freedom and social cohesion in a plural society.