‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions’ seems to be the maxim that aptly describes the furore surrounding the Uttarakhand state legislature’s attempt to legislate (or is it intrude?) on live-in relationships, which are part of the state’s Uniform Civil Code Act. The bill was passed in Parliament as an Act on Feb 5th 2024. (not able to verify this with a consistent date, should I delete it?)
Live-in relationships are used to refer to unmarried couples living together. “Living together is neither a crime nor a sin”, the Supreme Court ruled, in 2013, urging the Parliament to enact legislation to protect women and children in such arrangements [1]. Indeed, further back in 2010, in another case, judges remarked that “living together is not an offence” and “a right to life”, when an actress was accused of outraging public decency by supporting live-in relationships [2].This law attempts to do that, by codifying legal practice towards women and children in live-in relationships.
Some legal recognition of a relationship or union has many everyday benefits in societies and institutions inclined to favour the married over the unmarried, and this could provide an in-between step, since we don’t have civil partnerships in India. For example, perhaps, it’s hopefully easier to rent/buy a house, stay in a hotel together etc. Women in a live-in relationship who are stay-at-home/primary care-giver can now get ‘maintenance’, in the event of desertion, as well as more official protection from domestic violence [8], whereas no back-up would’ve been available earlier. Children born from live-in relationships are now officially recognized as legitimate in codified practice, and therefore, entitled to the same rights [3] . This might even reduce the stigma about live-in relationships.
However, extending legitimacy and protection to live-in relationships is no excuse for the state to exercise arbitrary surveillance over the privacy and liberty, sexual autonomy and choice of its citizens by masking paternalistic ulterior motives with a benevolent veneer.
Firstly, mandatory registration of live-in relationships without which one incurs a steep fine of Rs. 1000 and/or imprisonment of up to 3 months, in effect, is a punitive measure that punishes individuals over their choice of living [3]. Additionally, non-compliance results in a Rs. 10,000 fine and/or a 3 months jail term. Any falsity in the statements submitted to the registrar incurs a Rs. 25000 fine and/or 6 months prison sentence as does non-compliance in spite of being served a notice to register.
This need for compulsory registration, coupled with the requirement of the State’s assent renders the concept of live-in/cohabitation redundant. After all, one now has to toe the government line, by answering when a relationship starts and ends! This strips away the informality, individual autonomy, avoidance of legal involvement/ hassles that are some of the characteristics of a live-in relationship that people might be looking to utilise[6], thus, making this law coercive.
The loss of liberty is infantilizing to adults. If people under the age of 21 need a nod from the parents [3], then why call them adults when they have reached 18, the age of majority? The live-in structure is also useful for those below marriageable age, as the age of marriage shall soon be changed to 21, for both women and men, two years after the bill was notified [4].
If an ulterior motive is to eliminate live-in relationships by demanding registration, the government has set up quite a self-fulfilling prophecy here. Couples, who are particularly prone to coercion, stigma, violence like honour killings from parents and lack of social approval, are those crossing boundaries, of caste, class, gender and religion. One could argue that needing approval via inquiry from the registrar, amounts to mandating the State’s rubber stamp on one’s choice of partner.
The law discriminates against queer couples, polyamorous ones, or in cases where one of the partners is long separated but technically married or in the middle of a court process for divorce, as it allows only an unmarried ‘adult’ man and woman to participate [3]. This law misses out on the nuances of relationships and all their variety. It gives them no space to exist and punishes relations for being outside a constructed norm. It can cause young couples under threat from their family for the above reasons and fleeing from their homes to be sent back, if found, to abusive homes, yet again. In 2022, for example, a lesbian couple from Kerala obtained relief from the emotional blackmail, bruises and conversion therapy only after the Kerala HC allowed them to live together [5]. They were aged 21 and 23.
This causes us to wonder, what can the State start controlling next? As it is, this law requires people from Uttarakhand living in other states to register as well as non-residents from other states living in Uttarakhand to register [3]. It begs the question: what all is this data actually going to be used for? Tabulating the relationships/demographics of its citizens? Will people get other privileges like family does, e.g. right to visit in hospital, insurance benefits and other recognitions? Will live-in couples continue to meander through bureaucratic hoops with no benefits in sight?
This law ignores the past precedent set forth by the Supreme Court both in the Puttaswamy case (2017) and the Joseph Shine case (2018), which concern the non-interference of the State in consensual sexual relations amongst adults as well as a right to privacy of the body, respectively[6].
Perhaps this law was brought about to reduce parental apprehensions regarding a lack of protection for children, youth and women in live-in relationships. It has good aims in attempting to extend legitimacy to live-ins and trying to protect women and children. However, even marriages sanctioned by law can report harassment, violence, or death. The government may have bitten off more than they can chew by trying to classify the nature of its citizens’ relationships. This law, indeed, has the potential to cause more harassment and violence, than even the social stigma surrounding live-in relationships. Lesser reliance on scrutiny and punishment, and more safeguards for the couples themselves, might enable this law to serve the citizen’s best interests. After all, a bad law is no law.
Sources:
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-25150209