| Introduction: Contextual Introduction Body: Implications of Uttarakhand UCC on live-in relationships and implications on individual and society Conclusion: Way forward |
The Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (UCC) introduces mandatory registration and regulatory oversight of live-in relationships, marking the first instance of such a move in India. While ostensibly aimed at protecting vulnerable partners, particularly women, the law raises concerns about individual autonomy, legal overreach, and societal policing.
Impact of Uttarakhand’s UCC Provisions on Live-in Relationships
- Violation of Individual Autonomy and Privacy: The law disregards the personal liberty of individuals, particularly young couples who may enter live-in relationships as a trial phase before marriage or as an alternative to traditional marriage. Mandatory registration contradicts judicial precedents such as K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), which upholds the right to privacy. It also contradicts Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), which affirmed that live-in relationships do not require social or legal validation.
- Reinforcement of Moral Policing and Social Stigmatization: The UCC imposes conventional marital norms on live-in relationships, undermining their experimental nature. Instead of providing protection, it exposes couples to societal scrutiny, coercion, and potential moral policing by state and non-state actors.
- Gender Justice: Protection vs. Overregulation: Historically, the legal system has sought to extend protections to women in vulnerable live-in relationships, particularly those cohabiting with already married men (Malimath Committee, 2003). The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) included “relationships like marriage” to grant safeguards against abuse. However, subsequent Supreme Court rulings (Velusamy v. D Patchaiammal, 2010; Indra Sarma v. V.K. Sharma, 2013) restricted the scope of protection, leaving many women outside legal safeguards. The UCC does little to expand protections for women in precarious relationships, instead forcing legal recognition upon couples who may not seek it.
Implications of Regulating Live-in Relationships
- Legal Overreach and Inconsistencies: The definition of live-in relationships remains diverse, encompassing trial marriages, alternative relationships, and unions of divorced/widowed individuals. The law fails to address variant forms of live-in relationships, such as same-sex cohabitation or relationships where one partner is already married.
- Ambiguities in Rights and Obligations: The UCC mandates registration but does not clearly define the extent of legal rights conferred upon partners. Unintended consequences may include complicated litigation over separation, financial claims, and child custody. Instead of enhancing protections, the law imposes constraints that deter individuals from entering such relationships, leading to a backdoor push for marriage.
Conclusion
A more balanced legal response should ensure protections without coercively formalizing live-in relationships into a marital framework.
