The Uttarakhand High Court on Monday, 17 February, questioned a plea challenging the mandatory registration of live-in relationships under the state's Uniform Civil Code — and asked how it was an invasion of privacy when the couple were "brazenly" living together without marriage.
A division bench of chief justice G. Narender and justice Alok Mehra, while hearing a petition challenging the mandatory registration of live-in relationship in the state, asked, "You are living in society, not in a far-off cave in the jungle. From neighbours to the society, your relationship is known and you are living together brazenly, without being married. Then how can the registration of live-in relationship invade your privacy?"
The petitioner had moved court against the provision of mandatory registration for live-in relationships in the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (UCC). The alternative is facing imprisonment or a fine.
The petitioner said that they were distressed by the UCC provision as it was an attack on their privacy.
They claimed that being an inter-faith couple, it was difficult for them to live in the society and get their relationship registered.
Setting aside the question of the need for such a disclosure when failing to register a marriage promptly attracts no such penalty, here’s an attendant issue: who has the right to access the data on this (hopefully private?) sort of relationship.
For, just about a fortnight ago — when the first such live-in relationship was registered — didn't home secretary Shailesh Bagoli say that all identifying information would be stored encrypted, with even government officials able to view only the total number of applications and registrations?
“We have taken precautions against any breach of private information of couples applying for registration,” he had said. So then, how is there no expectation of privacy?
Worse, at the same time that the minister issued his statement, the Bajrang Dal stated they were on the lookout for “dangerous cases” — such as inter-faith couples — in that same dataset.
Local Bajrang Dal leader Vikas Verma was as claiming that the militant Hindutva organisation had access to the live-in registration details and was checking for interfaith couples specifically.
“We have come across a case in Haridwar where the couple are from different religions. We are constantly on the lookout for dangerous cases,” he reportedly said.
And that's just the unofficial police; the law requires the registrar to forward the data on live-in relationships to the nearest police station.
But perhaps milords of the Indian judiciary occupy an ivory tower where police harassment and extortion are not everyday courtroom drama?
Then again, there was also the small matter the same day as Verma’s statement of an interfaith couple — who had received police protection since December 2024 to tie the knot under the Special Marriage Act but are now living in fear for their lives after submitting their marriage notice on 7 January.
— and among those bringing pressure to bear on them and their families is (surprise, surprise!) the Bajrang Dal.
Meanwhile, in court today, counsel for the petitioners argued that several live-in relationships had turned into successful marriages and the provision created hindrance to the couples' future and privacy...
And that's an interesting twist too. For the UCC rules require, among the supporting documents to register a live-in relationship, a letter from a religious leader certifying that the couple are eligible to marry.
Which begs the question: What happens if a couple are deemed unfit for marriage — such as a same-sex couple might be — or denied registration for some other reason?
The law doesn't actually say, but the implicit answer seems to be that they must part ways — or pay that fine repeatedly or go to jail.
Civil society leaders such as Mallika Virdi of the Mahila Manch have suggested it is women’s safety being put at risk by the UCC, which ostensibly seeks to ensure the protection of women from domestic violence, blackmail and abuse.
“The Supreme Court has guaranteed that privacy is an inalienable right unless there is violence, when the state can come in,” the Indian Express cites her saying. “The UCC gives the power to anyone, including your neighbour, to complain (against live-in couples). What is the protection if a woman cannot exercise her agency while a section of the society decides what is public morality?”
Meanwhile, this is the same Indian judiciary that dismisses a rape charge simply because there is no such crime as marital rape. Curious, then, the UCC's many strictures — a 16-page form! — to protect a woman from abuse in a live-in relationship.
Or is it that like the right to privacy disappears when living in, the right to bodily autonomy disappears when married?
Earlier, on this PIL and other petitions filed against the Uttarakhand UCC, the court had directed that the aggrieved could approach the high court.
The court will hear the matter along with other similar pleas on 1 April.
