Context

• The implementation of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in Uttarakhand marks a significant shift in the governance of civil life, particularly concerning live-in relationships.
• The code mandates the compulsory registration of opposite-sex live-in relationships and criminalises non-compliance.
• While some aspects of this regulation aim to safeguard the rights of individuals involved in such relationships, others raise concerns regarding personal autonomy, privacy, and state interference.

The Primary Motivation Behind Regulating Live-in Relationships: Protection of Vulnerable Parties

• One of the primary motivations behind regulating live-in relationships is the protection of vulnerable individuals, particularly women and children.
• The UCC grants legitimacy to children born from live-in relationships, extending them legal recognition that was previously available only to those born from void or voidable marriages.
• Furthermore, the law provides a legal remedy of maintenance in cases where a partner is deserted.
• These provisions reflect a well-intentioned attempt to ensure financial security for individuals who may otherwise find themselves in precarious situations.

Drawbacks of Uttarakhand UCC

• However, the law falls short in offering support in cases where a live-in relationship is terminated rather than abandoned.
• Since termination merely requires a statement to the registrar, a partner may be left without recourse for financial support.
• This gap in the legal framework exposes a fundamental contradiction: while the law seeks to protect individuals in live-in relationships, it simultaneously upholds their informal nature, failing to provide necessary safeguards post-separation.
• Additionally, the exclusion of same-sex relationships from these provisions further highlights the law's limitations.
• By recognising only opposite-sex live-in relationships, the UCC leaves LGBTQ+ individuals without legal protection, reinforcing social and legal discrimination against non-heteronormative relationships.

Some Other Problematic Aspects of Uttarakhand UCC Law

• The Problematic Definition of Live-in Relationships
  • The UCC's definition of a live-in relationship is vague and overbroad, borrowing from the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which describes them as being “in the nature of marriage.”
  • However, many live-in relationships do not resemble marriages. Some may be transient, while others may not involve economic interdependence or domestic responsibilities.
  • The requirement to register a live-in relationship within one month fails to acknowledge the fluid nature of such arrangements.
  • Unlike marriages, live-in relationships often evolve gradually without a clear starting point.
  • By imposing strict registration requirements, the law may compel individuals to formalise relationships that do not fit within traditional legal definitions, leading to unnecessary bureaucratic complications.
• Violation of Sexual Autonomy and Privacy
  • A major concern with the UCC's provisions is its infringement on an individual’s right to sexual autonomy and privacy.
  • The Supreme Court of India, in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), affirmed an adult’s right to make autonomous decisions regarding sexual relationships.
  • The UCC, however, introduces measures that could enable family and societal interference in personal choices.
  • For instance, if one or both partners in a live-in relationship are below the age of 21, the law mandates that their parents or guardians be informed.
  • This provision not only violates an individual’s right to privacy but also places them at risk, especially in cases of inter-caste or inter-religious relationships, where parental disapproval can lead to honour-based violence.
  • The provision fails to recognise the reality that young adults, though legally permitted to engage in consensual sexual relationships, may face coercion and violence from their families due to social and cultural prejudices.
• Treating Live-in Relationship as Law-and-Order Issue
  • Furthermore, the requirement that information about live-in relationships be shared with the local police is another troubling aspect.
  • Such a move suggests that live-in relationships are a law-and-order issue rather than a matter of personal choice.
  • Criminalising non-registration further strengthens state control over private lives, reinforcing the notion that the government can dictate the legitimacy of personal relationships.
• A Misguided Approach to Relationship Regulation
  • Globally, jurisdictions that regulate non-marital cohabitation typically do so to extend legal protections and benefits similar to those of marriage, such as inheritance rights, joint property ownership, and healthcare access.
  • However, the Uttarakhand UCC seems to approach live-in relationships not as a legitimate form of partnership but as a problem requiring state control.
  • By enforcing mandatory registration and criminalizing non-compliance, the UCC moves away from a rights-based approach and instead imposes unnecessary restrictions on personal freedom.
  • Instead of empowering individuals in live-in relationships, it subjects them to greater legal scrutiny and potential societal backlash.

Conclusion

• While Uttarakhand’s UCC aims to provide legal safeguards for individuals in live-in relationships, its provisions raise significant concerns regarding autonomy, privacy, and state interference.
• The mandatory registration requirement, parental notification clauses, and criminalisation of non-compliance undermine the principles of sexual autonomy and personal freedom.
• Instead of ensuring protection, the law risks exposing individuals to greater vulnerability by legitimising societal control over private relationships.
• Moving forward, a more nuanced legal framework is needed, one that balances protection with personal liberties, recognising the diverse nature of modern relationships without excessive state intrusion.