The recent introduction of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) by the government of Uttarakhand has stirred considerable controversy and debate, particularly around part three (Sections 378 to 389) of the said law which seeks to regulate live-in-relationships.
This law mandates the registration of live-in relationships, imposes regulations on their termination, and introduces provisions for the maintenance of a woman deserted by her partner in a live-in relationship. While proponents argue that such measures promote legal clarity and uniformity, critics contend that the state is overstepping its boundaries and encroaching upon an individual's right to privacy.
This article critically examines the implications of Uttarakhand's UCC and argues that it represents an unjustifiable intrusion into the private lives of citizens.
The Right to Privacy and Personal Autonomy
Central to any discussion on the state's role in regulating personal relationships is the fundamental right to privacy. The right to privacy, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, encompasses the liberty to make personal choices regarding intimate relationships and lifestyle without unwarranted interference from the state. This right is not only essential for individual autonomy but also forms the bedrock of a democratic society.
By directing the mandatory registration of live-in relationships under Section 378 of the Act, the Uttarakhand government is effectively compelling individuals to disclose their private details to the state authorities.
Section 385(1) is questionable as it mandates the Registrar to inform the police about the registration of a live-in relationship and empowers them to inform the parents or guardians of such partners if any of them are below 21 years of age. Further, the Act give a free hand to the police under Section 385(2) for taking any “appropriate action” if any such relationship is prohibited under Section 380 or the details given are incorrect or suspicious.
It is to be noted that the term “appropriate action” used under Section 385(2) is not defined under the Act. Moreover, under Section 386, any person can infringe upon the privacy of a couple, by providing information or registering a complaint to the State. Additionally, the law makes it a punishable offence if the partners fail to register their live-in relationship with the Registrar, within one month of entering into such a relationship. The partners shall face imprisonment for a term that may extend to three months or be subjected to a fine of up to Rs 10,000 or both.
This not only violates the privacy of consenting adults but also undermines their autonomy to choose the nature and extent of their relationships without external interference. Such intrusive measures set a dangerous precedent, opening the door to state surveillance and control over individuals' private affairs.
Regulation of Relationship Termination
Furthermore, the imposition of regulations on the termination of live-in relationships under Section 384 represents an unwarranted intrusion into individuals' freedom of choice. While legal frameworks exist for the dissolution of marriages to protect the rights of parties involved, extending similar regulations to informal relationships like live-in arrangements fails to recognise the unique dynamics and complexities of such unions. Individuals in live-in relationships should have the freedom to decide the terms and conditions of their separation without undue interference from the state.
The introduction of statutory provisions for the termination of live-in relationships not only undermines individual autonomy but also exacerbates bureaucratic hurdles for those seeking to end their relationships. Instead of empowering individuals to make informed choices regarding their personal lives, such regulations serve to restrict their freedom and subject them to unnecessary state intervention.
Maintenance Provisions and Financial Autonomy
The law under Section 388, introduces the provisions for the maintenance of a woman who has been deserted by her live-in partner. This raises concerns about the state's intrusion into financial matters that should rightfully remain private. While ensuring financial security for vulnerable women who have been abandoned by their partners is crucial, imposing statutory obligations on men to provide for maintenance fails to account for the diverse circumstances and agreements that may exist between partners.
Section 388 puts liability on the male live-in partner to maintain the woman, which seems to be based on a presumption that the male partner is an earning partner. Given the age under which a person can enter a live-in-relationship i.e. 18 years, it is not necessary that the partners would be in an earning position to provide for maintenance. The provision of maintenance seems to be arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as it would subject even those men to pay maintenance who are yet to become employable.
The state's intervention in dictating financial arrangements between consenting adults undermines their financial autonomy and perpetuates dependency on state-sanctioned support mechanisms. Rather than imposing one-size-fits-all solutions, efforts should be directed toward empowering individuals to negotiate and establish mutually beneficial financial arrangements within the context of their relationships.
In conclusion, the introduction of Uttarakhand's Uniform Civil Code represents a significant overreach of state authority into the private lives of its citizens. By mandating the registration of live-in relationships, imposing regulations on their termination, and introducing provisions for maintenance, the residents are left with no choice at all but to succumb to the state’s regulation which is a direct attack on the fundamental principles of privacy, autonomy, and freedom of choice.
Instead of imposing top-down regulations, policymakers should focus on promoting awareness, providing support services, and ensuring access to legal remedies for individuals in need. Upholding the right to privacy and personal autonomy is essential in a democratic society, and any legislation that undermines these principles must be subject to rigorous scrutiny and challenge. The state must recognize and respect the diversity of personal choices and relationships within society, refraining from undue interference in the private lives of its citizens.
(Ravi Singh Chhikara is a practicing advocate at the Delhi High Court. Vaishali Chauhan is a practising advocate at Hon’ble Supreme Court and Delhi High Court. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)