State Laws Without Borders

** Ananya Rai and Ashish Chauhan

In a significant development that has taken the spotlight on the stage of constitutional discourse, the BJP led Uttarakhand Government has brought the Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand, 2024 [“UCC”] into operation from 27th January, 2025. While the Code’s novel provisions on live-in relationships have garnered significant attention, notably in a recent Rajasthan High Court judgement, it is pertinent to ask fundamental constitutional questions that lie at the bedrock of this framework. The UCC’s attempt to govern Uttarakhand residents beyond the State’s boundaries challenges the scope of the State’s legislative powers under Article 245 and the doctrine of territorial nexus. As other states contemplate similar UCCs, Uttarakhand’s constitutional innovation, or perhaps, overreach, calls for careful scrutiny. Through this article, the authors seek to examine three key aspects of this unprecedented legislative venture. First, we analyze the fundamental constitutional principles governing state legislative jurisdiction under Article 245, particularly examining how the concept of territorial nexus operates differently for social legislation compared to economic laws. Second, we explore the constitutional implications of creating quasi-state citizenship through extra-territorial application of personal laws, especially in light of Supreme Court precedents that emphatically reject the notion of state-specific domicile. Finally, we focus on how these constitutional concerns are particularly amplified in the context of live-in relationships – a personal arrangement that has historically existed outside formal legal frameworks and is now subject to registration requirements with penal consequences for non-compliance.

The concept of extra-territoriality and the doctrine of territorial nexus

Extra-territorial operation of law or extraterritoriality refers to the power of the legislature to make laws that are effective beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the legislature. Article 245 of the Constitution implies that unlike the Union Parliament, the State Legislature holds no extra-territorial jurisdiction. This territorial limitation serves a dual purpose: it not only restricts a state from unnecessarily extending its legislative reach beyond its borders but also protects each state’s legislative autonomy within its territory from encroachment by sister states. However, this limitation is not absolute and a state-legislation may have repercussions beyond the territory of that State as long as sufficiency of purpose and territorial nexus can be proved. It is pivotal to underscore that without the establishment of such a territorial nexus, extra-territorial applicability of any State Legislation would be ultra vires. Proving the sufficiency of purpose and territorial connection requires that (i) the connection must be real and not illusory; and (ii) the liability sought to be imposed must be pertinent to that connection. 

Unconstitutional extraterritoriality of the provisions of the UCC

Section 1(3) of the UCC, ventures beyond the established framework by asserting jurisdiction over its residents, including those living outside the State’s territory, purely based on the status of residency. This effectively creates a form of portable state-specific personal law that follows individuals across state boundaries without any territorial nexus – a concept that finds no basis in the constitutional scheme of legislative distribution of powers.

Under Section 3(n) of the UCC, the term ‘resident’ means a citizen of India within or outside the territory of the State of Uttarakhand, who- 

(i) is eligible to be a permanent resident under the notification issued by the State Government in this regard, or

(ii) is a permanent employee of the State Government or its undertakings/entities, or

(iii) is a permanent employee of the Central Government or its undertakings/ entities, employed within the territory of the State,or

(iv) has been residing in the State for not less than one year, or

(v) is a beneficiary of any scheme of the State Government or the Central Government, applicable in the State;

To prove their status as resident under the Uniform Civil Code Rules, Uttarakhand, 2025, individuals must provide specific documentation: either a domicile or permanent resident certificate, or employment certification from central/state government employers, or proof of one-year residency through electricity/water bills/relevant passport extracts/rent agreements along with tenant verification certificates, or documentation proving their status as beneficiaries of applicable government schemes through beneficiary cards, numbers, or other valid government-issued documents. 

Now, it is pertinent to note that when a state government issues, what it terms, a ‘domicile certificate’ or ‘permanent residency certificate,’ it is merely proof of residence within a specific spot within the territory of India with no legal implications permitting the creation of additional extra-territorial authority over the certificate holder. Unlike the United States of America, India does not have a system of federal citizenship and recognises only one citizenship and one domicile – that of India as a whole. Hence, an individual’s affiliation with a State can never be equated to State citizenship or domicile; at most, it can be said that the individual is permanently resident in that State. Within this framework, it is pertinent to emphasise that the competence of a State Legislature to make laws for the ‘whole or part of a State’ does not emanate from the State’s people’s status as ‘resident’ – such State laws would apply to even foreigners passing through the State who do not fulfill the criteria of ‘resident’ or even ‘permanent resident’. Rather, a State Legislature derives its legislative competence from its direct jurisdiction over its territory and, where required, any established territorial nexus beyond its borders. Hinging the State Legislature’s competence on ‘resident’ status or even ‘permanent resident’ status would be permitting a back-door entry to dualist citizenship consisting one federal and other union citizenship, which runs contrary to Part II of the Indian Constitution. Given this backdrop, any legislation whose applicability relies merely on the special class of ‘residents’ fails to prove a real connection between the State and the subject-matter of law to fulfil the doctrine of territorial nexus. This principle was also underscored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.C. Chagla in State of Bombay v. Narayandas Mangilal Dayame, where he emphasised that the mere fact that a person is permanently resident in a state cannot enlarge that state’s legislative jurisdiction beyond its territorial boundaries, especially in matters of social legislation like marriage and live-in relationships. This was articulated in the judgement as follows:

“…If we are right in what we have just said, then it is clear that the mere fact that the Legislature should seek to apply its law to those whom it chose to call domiciled in the State but which means permanently residents in the State, cannot enlarge the jurisdiction of the Legislature…”

On this note, it is also essential to draw a distinction between cases such as State of Bombay v. RMDC, where the doctrine of territorial nexus has been applied to state tax legislation, and cases such as those that will be birthed by the extra-territorial operation of this UCC. When we consider the former, there is a clear economic connection with regard to income earned and financial transactions conducted – the state often provides services and infrastructure to facilitate such economic activities – resulting in a clear effect within the state and hence forming a real, continuing nexus. On the other hand, if we consider the latter, the domicile state of a resident who resides outside that state would not have any functional nexus with marriages/live-in relationships contracted outside such state. The only connection to the domicile state would be their previous residence – which is precisely what makes this illusory and hence, problematic.

Extra-territoriality of penal provision

As our analysis tells us, the extraterritorial application of the UCC to the category of ‘residents’ poses a strict problem within the Indian Constitutional structure. This problem is further exacerbated by the provision of criminal punishment in instances of failure of registration of such live-in relationships. Now, a broader discussion whether such punishment is in tandem with the wrong done is beyond the scope of this article. The authors are of the opinion that registration of live-in is excessive in light of the Supreme Court’s judgement in Mamta Rani vs Union of India. There also exists a problem-solution mismatch, as providing a criminal punishment in case of a civil wrong adds to the problem of misuse of criminal law and overcriminalisation of civil issues. Thus, the penalty provided in Section 387(1) of the UCC which provides for imprisonment upto 3 months in the instance of failure of registration of the live-in within one month does not suitably match the civil ‘wrong-doing’ as registration of personal relationships are a civil matter. Interestingly enough, non-registration of a marriage neither amounts to invalidation of such a relationship nor results in penal consequences.

In arguendo, even if such punishment is permissible, the spectre of extra-territoriality still lingers on. The principle of ‘crime is local’ is a settled legal principle and courts have held that the mere fact that the offender is a resident of a particular territory does not constitute a sufficient nexus between the crime and the State, provided that this crime is committed beyond the territory of the state. Again, providing the authority to the State Legislature to punish a resident beyond its boundaries is to elevate the State Legislature to the same stature as Parliament which possesses extra-territorial powers under the Constitution This would again introduce dual nature to citizenship in India, one being that of union and other federal. Therefore, provisions permitting the punishment to extend extra-territorially is clearly ultra vires of the constitutional scheme.

Conclusion

When Uttarakhand’s UCC attempts to regulate the personal relationships of its ‘residents’ in other states, it not only exceeds its own constitutional limitations under Article 245 but also potentially interferes with the legislative authority of other states over their territories. This creates precisely the kind of jurisdictional overlap that Article 245 seeks to prevent. If each state were to follow Uttarakhand’s approach and claim continuing jurisdiction over their residents’ personal matters in their UCCs in the future, it would create an unworkable system of competing state laws. This absurdity becomes clear when we consider a couple consisting of partners who are residents of Uttarakhand and say, Gujarat, respectively – tomorrow, if Gujarat enacts its own UCC with extra-territorial provisions, which state’s law would prevail? This scenario depicts the potential of fundamental contradictions within the scheme of division of legislative powers under Article 245 and undermines the constitutional framework of inter-state relations. Drawing from Justice Chagla’s observation, the authors are of the opinion that an overhaul of personal laws and social legislation can lead to a truly ‘uniform’ civil code only when it is done in a unified manner by the Union Parliament.

**Ananya Rai is a second-year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) student at National Law University, Jodhpur, with a keen interest in constitutional law, feminism, and community development. Committed to social justice, she has volunteered for educational initiatives for underprivileged children and contributed to women’s welfare organizations, merging her academic pursuits with meaningful community engagement. Ashish Chauhan is a third-year B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. His interests include Constitutional Law and Sociology of Law.

** Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily align with the views of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.