Uttarakhand Govt Must Not Enter Our Bedroom
A New Bill Seeks to Regulate Live-In Relationships
Newsreel Asia Insight #124
Feb. 7, 2024
The Uttarakhand government has introduced a bill mandating residents, whether they are from the state or not, to register their live-in relationships with district authorities. This move starkly contravenes the essential respect for individual freedoms, contradicts legal precedents established by the Supreme Court of India, challenges societal norms and raises questions about governance practices.
Called the Uniform Civil Code Bill, it was tabled by Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami on Feb. 6, as reported by Scroll.in. Apart from the contentious provision of establishing a common set of laws governing marriage, divorce, succession, and adoption applicable to all communities—which necessitates a distinct, detailed examination—this legislation represents a direct encroachment on personal freedoms.
The Indian Constitution, under Article 21, guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to privacy. By mandating registration, the bill not only invades this privacy but also subjects personal relationships to state scrutiny, potentially deterring individuals from exercising their personal choice to live together without marriage.
Philosopher John Stuart Mill argued in his work “On Liberty” that the only reason for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His “harm principle” suggests that the state should not interfere in the personal choices of individuals, including their choice to enter into live-in relationships, as long as these choices do not harm others.
The Uttarakhand bill, by mandating registration and imposing penalties on unregistered live-in relationships, represents a form of state interference that contradicts liberal principles. It treats personal relationships as matters of public concern, subject to regulation and control, rather than private choices protected from undue state intrusion. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), currently in power in Uttarakhand, is known for its conservative stance, in contrast to the liberal ethos enshrined in the Constitution of India and reflected in various judgments of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has, in various judgments, recognised the legitimacy of live-in relationships.
In Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the Supreme Court recognised the importance of protecting women in live-in relationships under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court acknowledged that these relationships deserve protection as they may be akin to marital relationships in terms of dependency, duration and social recognition.
In D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal (2010), the Court laid down criteria for a live-in relationship to be recognised under the law, including duration of the relationship, shared household, pooling of resources and societal recognition. This judgment provided a legal framework for recognising and protecting the rights of partners in a live-in relationship, further legitimising such arrangements.
Further, live-in relationships are often viewed through the lens of societal norms and cultural values. In many parts of India, these relationships are still stigmatised, seen as contrary to traditional marriage norms. By introducing a regulatory mechanism, the bill might inadvertently reinforce this stigma, legitimising discrimination – even violence, including honour killing – against those who choose to live together without marrying. This could lead to increased social ostracisation and psychological distress for couples in such relationships.
Furthermore, the implementation of this bill poses significant administrative challenges. The appointment of registrars, the process of registration and the enforcement of penalties require substantial resources and administrative machinery. There are concerns about the efficiency of this process, potential bureaucratic delays and the misuse of power. Furthermore, the ambiguity in the bill’s provisions—such as the criteria for registration, the rights of couples once registered, and the enforcement mechanisms—could lead to arbitrary interpretation and implementation.
Now, think about vulnerable populations, including women, LGBTQ+ individuals and those with HIV, who may find themselves in live-in relationships due to various social and economic reasons. The requirement to register could expose them to familial and societal backlash, legal repercussions and violence. Moreover, the penalty of imprisonment and fines for non-compliance could disproportionately affect those already marginalised, exacerbating their vulnerability.
The bill’s approach reflects a broader tension between state intervention and individual autonomy, highlighting the need for a balanced approach that respects personal liberties while addressing societal concerns irrespective of the political ideology of the governing party.
