Boundaries Between Intrusive State, Inviolable Right To Privacy

A major issue today is how to balance state power and individual privacy, especially in personal matters like relationships. Increasingly, the state appears to be intruding into citizens’ private lives, challenging the boundaries of constitutional liberty.

About Right To Privacy

• Privacy, as a concept, refers to an individual’s right to control their personal information, relationships, and decisions without unwarranted interference. 
• The right to privacy is enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), as affirmed by the Supreme Court in landmark judgments like Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India (2017). 
• The Supreme Court 9 Judge bench upheld privacy as intrinsic to dignity, autonomy and freedom including choices related to love, food, dress and thoughts. It held that privacy includes:
  • Bodily autonomy (control over one’s physical self)
  • Informational privacy (protection of personal data)
  • Decisional privacy (freedom in personal choices, including relationships)
• However, the state often justifies intrusions by citing public order, morality, or welfare, leading to a dangerous blurring of lines between legitimate regulation and authoritarian overreach.

State’s Role: Regulation vs Intrusion

• Legitimacy of the State: The legitimacy of a state is not determined by how deeply it can intrude into citizens’ lives. True legitimacy lies in the state’s wisdom to draw the line between governance and overreach.
• Principles Governing State Interference: Any interference by the government in personal matters must satisfy:
  • Necessity: Is the intervention truly required?
  • Proportionality:  Is the response balanced and reasonable?
  • Constitutionality: Does it conform to the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution?
• Examples: Minimum Legal Marriage Age (Protective Intent), Dry Days( Symbolic Respect)
• It is problematic when State’s interfere without compelling public interest.

Case Study: Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (UCC) and Live-In Relationship

• The Uttarakhand UCC Bill requires live-in couples to register their relationship with district authorities, failing which they may face penalties. 
• The government claims this will: Prevent exploitation (especially of women), Provide legal clarity in case of disputes and Integrate such relationships into a formal framework

Implications Of Mandatory Live-in-Registration

• Violation of Privacy and Autonomy: Live-in relationships are legal in India, as upheld by the Supreme Court in S. Khushboo vs Kanniammal (2010) and Indra Sarma vs V.K.V. Sarma (2013).
  • Supreme Court recognises Live-in-relationships under Article 21.Forcing couples to declare their relationship to the state infringes on their decisional privacy, turning a personal choice into a public record.
• Moral Policing: India remains socially conservative, and live-in couples often face ostracization, familial pressure, and even violence.
  • Mandatory registration exposes them to harassment, especially in cases of inter-caste or inter-faith relationships.
  • Trust Vs Control: A mature democracy requires trust in its citizens. Surveillance based regulation erodes autonomy and dignity.
• Risk of Selective Enforcement: Such laws can be weaponized by families, vigilantes, or authorities to target couples, extort or intimidate individuals.
• Paternalism vs. Genuine Welfare: While protecting vulnerable partners (especially women) is important, mandatory registration is not the solution. Existing laws (Domestic Violence Act, IPC provisions) already address exploitation and adding bureaucratic hurdles does not help in bettering the situations of women.

Democracy Demands Restraint, Not Control

• Powerful States are those that show restraint and not brute control.
• Privacy is a compact of trust between State and citizen. As India evolves, the state must resist the urge to control and instead trust its citizens. For in that trust lies the true essence of freedom.
• Overreach can destabilise constitutional democracy.

Conclusion

Privacy is a right and not a privilege. State should guide and not govern personal decisions. Every well meaning law is not necessarily justified.