Answer

Uttarakhand UCC defines a live-in relationship as a cohabitation between a man and a woman in a shared household through a relationship in the nature of marriage. The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) aims to standardize personal laws across religions, but its recent implementation in Uttarakhand has sparked concerns over individual autonomy and privacy. The law mandates live-in relationship registration, introducing state oversight into personal affairs.

Rationale behind Uttarakhand’s UCC Mandates on Registration of Live-in Relationships 

• Ensuring Legal Accountability: The UCC mandates registration of live-in relationships to establish legal accountability, ensuring that partners fulfill responsibilities related to property rights, maintenance, and inheritance.
  For example: The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005) recognized that women in live-in relationships are entitled to maintenance, and mandatory registration aims to prevent exploitation by documenting such relationships.
• Curbing Fraudulent Relationships: By making live-in relationships legally recorded, the UCC aims to prevent deception, where individuals may falsely claim marriage or refuse legal responsibility in case of disputes.
  For example: In the Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) case, the Supreme Court ruled that abandoning a long-term live-in partner without support could amount to exploitation.
• Addressing Social Concerns: The government argues that registration prevents relationships that may lead to social disruption, especially those that challenge cultural norms or are perceived as inappropriate.
• Preventing Misuse of Religious Conversions: By linking relationship registration with religious verification, the law aims to monitor conversions for marriage, addressing concerns about coerced or deceptive religious changes.
  For example: The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act (2021) mandates a 60-day notice for religious conversion, leading to legal scrutiny over interfaith marriages.
• Facilitating Government Oversight: The UCC provides a formalized mechanism for state oversight, ensuring that relationships comply with legal and cultural norms, supposedly promoting social order.
  For example: The Rajasthan government proposed a similar live-in registration law, arguing it would help track relationships and protect individuals from domestic disputes.

Positive Impact of Such Legal Measures on Interfaith Relationships and Social Cohesion in India

• Protecting Vulnerable Partners: The registration process ensures legal protection for partners, particularly women, by securing rights related to inheritance, maintenance, and domestic violence laws.
  For example: The Supreme Court ruled in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) that a live-in partner may acquire rights to property accumulated during the subsistence of the relationship.
• Preventing Forced Conversions: The scrutiny discourages forced conversions for marriage, ensuring that interfaith relationships are based on genuine consent rather than coercion or deception.
  For example: In Hadiya’s case (2017), the Supreme Court upheld an individual’s right to marry by choice, reinforcing the idea that religious conversion should be voluntary and lawful.
• Reducing Legal Disputes: With formal registration, interfaith couples gain legal clarity, reducing future disputes related to custody, property rights, and marital status in case of separation.
  For example: The Special Marriage Act (1954) already provides a legal framework for interfaith marriages, ensuring legal protection without religious conversion.
• Creating a Formal Record for Rights: The registration system enables interfaith couples to claim legal rights, preventing societal and familial pressure from invalidating their relationships.
• Encouraging Social Acceptance: While controversial, state recognition of live-in relationships may eventually normalize interfaith unions, fostering broader societal acceptance over time.

Drawback of Such Legal Measures on Interfaith Relationships and Social Cohesion in India

• Invasion of Privacy: Mandating registration and informing families exposes couples to societal pressure, coercion, and potential violence, especially in communities opposing interfaith relationships.
  For example: In Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006), the Supreme Court upheld an adult woman’s right to marry by choice, condemning family interference in interfaith unions.
• Encouraging Vigilantism: Public documentation of interfaith relationships emboldens right-wing groups to harass, intimidate, or even violently oppose such unions, increasing social hostility.
• Eroding Women’s Autonomy: By informing families about relationships, the law exposes women to honor-based violence, forced separation, or coercive interventions.
  For example: The National Crimes Records Bureau (NCRB) reported that the number of honour killings reported in India was 25 each in 2019 and 2020, and 33 in 2021, often linked to interfaith or inter-caste relationships.
• Legalizing Social Surveillance: The requirement to seek religious or community approval gives religious leaders undue authority over personal choices, undermining constitutional freedoms.
• Institutionalizing Religious Segregation: The legal framework restricts interfaith interactions by making marriage or live-in relationships legally cumbersome, reinforcing religious divisions in society.
  For example: In apartheid-era South Africa, laws banned inter-racial marriages, institutionalizing segregation, anti-conversion and live-in registration laws risk a similar societal divide.

Way Ahead to Address These Issues

• Strengthening Privacy Protections: Legal provisions should ensure that relationship registration remains confidential, preventing family or third-party interference in personal decisions.
  For example: The Puttaswamy judgment (2017) recognized privacy as a fundamental right, which should apply to personal relationships, preventing state overreach.
• Removing Religious Verification: Relationship registration should not require approval from religious or community leaders, ensuring that personal choices remain free from institutional control.
  For example: The Special Marriage Act (1954) allows interfaith marriages without religious intervention, setting a precedent for state neutrality in personal matters.
• Ensuring Gender Justice: Legal frameworks should focus on protecting women’s rights, including safeguards against honor-based violence, coercion, and forced separations.
  For example: The Vishaka Guidelines (1997) set a precedent for legal protections against gender-based harassment, which should extend to interfaith relationships.
• Combating Vigilantism: Strict legal action should be taken against groups or individuals who harass interfaith couples, ensuring that laws are not misused to justify social policing.
  For example: The Supreme Court in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) directed states to take strict action against mob violence, a principle that should apply to interfaith unions.
• Promoting Social Awareness: Educational initiatives, media campaigns, and legal literacy programs should highlight the importance of interfaith harmony, personal freedom, and constitutional rights.
  For example: The ‘Ek Bharat, Shreshtha Bharat’ initiative promotes intercultural understanding, which can be leveraged to foster acceptance of interfaith relationships.

Balancing legal oversight with personal freedoms is crucial for a harmonious society. A progressive legal framework must protect vulnerable individuals without undermining autonomy or widening social divides. Strengthening awareness, legal safeguards, and community dialogue can ensure inclusivity while addressing concerns, paving the way for a cohesive and pluralistic India where diverse relationships thrive without fear or prejudice.

DOWNLOAD PDF