On February 27, 2025, the Uttarakhand High Court addressed the growing prevalence of live-in relationships, with the presiding justices noting that the proposed Uniform Civil Code (UCC) aims to safeguard the rights of women and the children resulting from such relationships.
This commentary arose during the proceedings concerning two petitions that challenged various aspects of the UCC, which was introduced by the State on January 26, 2025. One petition was lodged by social activists Uma Bhatt, Kamla Pant, and Munish Kumar, while the other came from a couple currently in a live-in arrangement. Under the UCC, couples in live-in relationships are required to register their status with the state.
The justices advised the couple to return to the court should they face any punitive measures for failing to register their relationship.
Concerns Over Privacy
During the hearing, advocate Vrinda Grover raised crucial points regarding the UCC Act, suggesting it permits extensive state surveillance and impinges on personal choices within the realm of privacy rights. She stated, “The UCC introduces a harsh statutory framework that subjects individuals to scrutiny, authorization, and penal consequences based on their choice of partner.”
Justice Tiwari questioned whether the compulsory registration of relationships could be deemed unconstitutional. He emphasized that as live-in relationships continue to flourish, even if not universally accepted, the law seeks to adapt to societal changes while ensuring protections for women and children.
In response, Ms. Grover highlighted that a careful examination of the UCC might increase the risk of harassment and violence towards women and couples who do not conform to mainstream societal norms. She warned that the legislation could encourage vigilantism against those involved in live-in relationships.
Ms. Grover argued, “The law enables anyone to file complaints questioning the legitimacy of a live-in relationship. Social morality should not undermine constitutional morality.” She also criticized the obligatory submission of sensitive documents, like Aadhaar, during the registration process.
The court then inquired of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the State government, whether public input had been solicited prior to instituting the UCC, and if those comments had been incorporated into the final framework.
Mr. Mehta defended the UCC, asserting that it does not infringe on privacy rights and functions merely as a regulatory tool intended to protect the interests of women who may find themselves in vulnerable situations. He emphasized that the statutory scheme emerged from extensive discussions with various stakeholders.
