Live-in relationships not fully accepted; UCC aims to protect rights: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court on Thursday remarked that although live-in relationships are becoming more prevalent, they may not yet have full societal acceptance, and the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) law aims to accommodate this shift while ensuring the rights of women and children born from such relationships..A Bench of Justices Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Ashish Naithani made the observation while hearing two PILs - one filed by social activists from Uttarakhand and the other by a live-in couple challenging the constitutional validity of the State's UCC Act.The Bench issued notice, tagged these petitions with a batch of similar pleas and scheduled them for hearing on April 1..Advocate Vrinda Grover appearing for the petitioners contended that the UCC Act and its Rules enable excessive state surveillance and policing of personal choices, which fall within the ambit of the right to privacy. She argued that the UCC establishes a stringent statutory framework involving inquiry, authorisation and penalisation of partner choices.During the hearing, Justice Tiwari questioned whether the mere requirement of relationship registration could be challenged as unconstitutional. In response, Grover said that although the law is being presented as a measure to safeguard women's rights, a closer examination reveals that it could instead heighten harassment and violence against women and couples who do not conform to majoritarian norms.She further pointed out that the law grants parents and other external actors access to registrants’ personal details, enabling vigilantism. Additionally, it permits any individual to file a complaint questioning the validity of a live-in relationship, she argued. She asserted that social morality should not override constitutional morality.Grover contended that the mandatory requirement of Aadhaar details violates the Supreme Court’s judgment in Puttaswamy..Appearing for the State, Solicitor General for India Tushar Mehta assured the Court that the matter was being examined. He submitted that the UCC Act, 2024 does not violate the right to privacy, but serves as a regulatory mechanism aimed at protecting women who are often vulnerable and face injustice. Mehta further emphasised that the statutory scheme was formulated after extensive consultations with all relevant stakeholders.After considering the arguments, the Court issued notice on the petitions and on Grover’s request, it recorded that “if any penal action is initiated against any individual, they are at liberty to move this bench.”.In the first PIL, the couple is in a consensual live-in relationship. While the female petitioner’s family supports their relationship, the male petitioner faces familial hostility, including threats from his brother, forcing them to live in rented accommodation. Their concerns about harassment and interference in live-in relationships have intensified with the enactment of the UCC, which mandates registration of live-in relationships under Section 381(1) and imposes punitive sanctions, including jail time, effective from February 27, 2025.The woman, who identifies as queer, is compelled to register under a heteronormative framework, violating her right to self-determination, the plea stated.The plea further contended that the State UCC Act, 2024, and UCC Rules, 2025 are challenged for violating fundamental rights, including privacy, dignity, decisional, associational and reproductive autonomy. The mandatory registration, summary inquiry and police notification provisions are argued to be unconstitutional, exposing couples to harassment, coercion and violence, it was added.Additionally, the plea asserted that Act’s binary gender framework fails to recognise diverse gender identities, infringing upon constitutionally guaranteed rights upheld by the Supreme Court of India..The second PIL has been filed by three petitioners who have made contributions to women’s rights and social justice in Uttarakhand, and a senior journalist with over 26 years of experience in social justice advocacy and disaster relief.They argued that UCC is regressive and symbolic, failing to address structural causes of gender violence and falling short of the egalitarian vision of Article 44 of the Constitution.By excluding Scheduled Tribes, transgender individuals and LGBTQIA+ persons, the Act deepens legal inequities rather than fostering true equality, the plea stated.Additionally, the plea highlighted that the lack of procedural safeguards raises concerns about its implementation and potential misuse, risking further marginalisation of vulnerable communities.