The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill, which was introduced in the Uttarakhand Assembly on Tuesday, goes into uncharted territory. It imposes strict terms on a consensual relationship between adults and raises constitutional concerns of privacy and personal liberty. It starts with requiring heterosexual couples to register with the state when beginning or ending a live-in relationship, with a record of that registration kept in a police station. It also provides maintenance to the woman when her partner “deserts” her.
The Bill basically aims to make heterosexual live-in partnerships equal to married status. A separate chapter in the proposed Code deals with live-in relationships, defining them as a “relationship between a man and a woman” (partners) who “cohabit in a shared household through a relationship in the nature of marriage, provided that such relations are not prohibited.”
According to the Bill, while ending a live-in relationship or starting a new one, the partners must notify the “Registrar” within a month. It stipulates that failing to register a live-in relationship could result in a three-month jail sentence. If a live-in relationship certificate is not produced, a six-month sentence is imposed upon conviction.
When questioned about these rules, a state government official stated that the main driving force behind them was “concerns over heinous crimes among live-in couples.” Furthermore, in the event that a partner had “bad intentions,” registration would serve as a “mental deterrent.”
“When the expert committee (led by Justice Ranjana Desai) went to remote areas in Uttarakhand for public consultation,” an official said, “incidents (of live-in crime) were fresh in the minds of the people. Because of that, during public consultation, parents and elderly said they want something to be done. It was discussed that personal freedom is important but the interest of youngsters is also important. The committee found a way to ensure that.”
Easier said than done, said many experts. “The compulsory registration takes away the freedom to choose not being married. The state should not enter into the realm of what citizens do consensually. Prima facie, it intrudes into the domain of privacy which is recognised as a fundamental right in the Puttaswamy ruling,” senior advocate Geeta Luthra said.
Significantly, the proposed Code also provides for maintenance for women “deserted” by her partner, similar to a married woman. Section 388 states: “If a woman gets deserted by her live-in partner, she shall be entitled to claim maintenance from her live-in partner, for which she may approach the competent Court having jurisdiction over the place where they last cohabited, and, in such a case, the provisions contained in chapter 5, Part 1 of the Code shall mutatis mutandis apply.”
The Supreme Court ruled in the 2010 case of Velusamy v. Patchaiammal, which dealt with the Domestic Violence Act, that spending one night together or sharing a weekend together does not constitute a “domestic relationship.”
The proposed law will apply to those living in Uttarakhand as well as residents of Uttarakhand living elsewhere in India.
Section 378 of the Code requires submission of a statement by partners to a live-in relationship. “It shall be obligatory for partners to live-in relationship within the state, whether they are resident(s) of Uttarakhand or not, to submit a statement of live-in relationship under sub-section 1 of section 381 to the Registrar within whose jurisdiction they are living,” it states.
“Any resident(s) of Uttarakhand staying in a live-in relationship outside the territory of the state, may submit a statement of live-in relationship under sub section 1 of section 381 to the Registrar within whose jurisdiction such resident ordinarily resides,” it adds.
Additionally, the Bill states clearly that a kid born within a relationship is a legitimate child. Although it was previously the law, this is now the official view.
The Registrar has the authority to carry out a “summary inquiry,” calling the live-in partners or “any other persons” for confirmation, much like the magistrate is given in the anti-conversion laws.
If one of the partners is under 21, the Registrar will notify the parents or guardians and transmit the record to the relevant police station.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the right to privacy in the Puttaswamy ruling of 2017, citing multiple precedents that stated that disclosure of “personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest” or that would cause “unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual” would not be permitted unless the government is “satisfied that the larger public interest justifies its disclosure”
The Delhi High Court in the Naz Foundation ruling in 2009, which for the first time struck down Section 377 of the IPC, had said: “…The sphere of privacy allows persons to develop human relations without interference from the outside community or from the State. The exercise of autonomy enables an individual to attain fulfilment, grow in self-esteem, build relationships of his or her choice and fulfil all legitimate goals that he or she may set. In the Indian Constitution, the right to live with dignity and the right of privacy both are recognised as dimensions of Article 21…” (with Avaneesh Mishra)
