Policing Intimacy: The Constitutional Paradox of Regulating Live-in Relationships under Uttarakhand’s UCC

*by Rohan Yadav

Introduction 

A landmark event occurred in the regulation of personal laws in India when the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), enshrined under Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, was enforced in Uttarakhand on January 27th, 2025. This watershed moment marked the first time in Independent India, when a civil code was enforced to regulate all the matters related to personal laws such as marriage, divorce, adoption, succession and inheritance, for everyone in a uniform manner, irrespective of religion, caste or creed. A unique feature of this law is its application under Part III of the Act, which regulates Live-in relations in Uttarakhand and among the residents of the state living elsewhere in India. This code also marks only the second time the Uniform Civil Code has been enforced in any part of India, after the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867 in Goa. Although the UCC Act in Uttarakhand seeks to holistically regulate the legal framework governing marriage, live-in relationships, succession, divorce and matters incidental thereto as reflected in its long title, it poses serious concerns regarding autonomy, privacy and the viability of government involvement in intimate relationships such as live-in relationships.

Concerns about the enforcement of the UCC Code on Live-in relationships: 

The UCC defines a live-in relationship as a relationship between a man and a woman, both of whom have achieved 21 years of age. All Uttarakhand residents, including those who reside outside the state, as well as non-residents who live together in Uttarakhand, are covered by the Uttarakhand UCC Act of 2024. It mandates young couples who are currently in a live–in relationship or considering the same to register themselves with the registrar of their respective jurisdiction by giving “a statement of live-in relationship”, which is defined as per section 3(4)(d). The enforceability of the Uniform Civil Code of 2024 in Uttarakhand, especially on the Live-in relationship couples, has some very beneficial impacts, such as the fact that children born to them are now as legitimate under Section 379 and it prioritises consent as well as the overall well-being of women by including maintenance under Section 388. 

In spite of these benefits, it still raises some serious concerns regarding the regulation of Live-in relationships, a concept whose legal contours were discussed in principle by the Honourable Supreme Court in Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma 2013. It is pertinent to note that the judgment primarily focused on examining the scope and limits of protection provided under the Domestic Violence Act 2005, rather than granting an affirmative and universal legitimacy to every form of live-in arrangement. The UCC  indirectly overlooks the established jurisprudence on Live-in relationships as laid down by the Apex Court, comprising principles of dignity, autonomy and privacy by provisions such as mandating registration and parental consent before the age of 21.  Some of the most essential gaps and concerns in the newly enforced code are as follows: 

1. Exclusion of the LGBTQIA+ community:

One of the most striking gaps in the formation of this code is the exclusion of LGBTQIA+ people or those who do not fall under the category of binary, thereby undermining the very notions of inclusivity, uniformity and equality, which the code seeks to achieve. The UCC Act in Uttarakhand in entirety excludes non-binary and explicitly recognises only heterosexual unions between a “male” and a “female” as defined under Section 3(4)(b) of the code. This straightforward exclusion of the LGBTQIA+ community is particularly regressive in light of the recent landmark Supreme Court judgments that have upheld the rights of queer communities to cohabitate freely with consent, such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) and Supriyo v. Union of India (2023). 

2. Several contradictions between the law related to marriage and Live-in relationships: 

There are some key dichotomies between the laws and statutes governing the institution of marriages and those of UCC  regulating live-in relationships in Uttarakhand such as the legal age of marriage for girls is 18 as per Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and Special Marriage Act 1954 whereas under the Uttarakhand UCC, girls have to wait until the age of 21 years to get the legal recognition of their live-in relationships. There has been neither a rational justification given to explain this flaw by the lawmakers, nor is there any record of Assembly debate addressing the legislative inconsistency whereby a girl legally permitted to marry at 18 must nevertheless wait until 21 to enter a legally recognised live-in relationship without parental consent.

Moreover, non-registration of marriages has no serious penalties or imprisonment, while the same is not the case with live-in relationships. Another important contradiction is that Rule 6(4)(f) under the UCC Rules makes compliance impractical for live–in relationship couples, falling within prohibited degrees of relationship, due to the condition of having a certificate by the partners, certified by a religious head stating that the customs and norms which govern the respective partners allow them to marry. The secularism outlined in the Preamble gets undermined as such a requirement introduces religious validation into a secular civil framework.

Another major concern arises that neither the legislation nor the judiciary has, to date not satisfactorily disclosed how to ascertain the date from which a live-in relationship is considered to have started, as people who fail to submit the statement of such a relationship within a month of entering such a relationship may be punished under Section 387(1).

3. Dignity and Privacy of Live-in relationships couples:

The Fundamental Right to Privacy, as enshrined in the Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union of India (2018) and the Fundamental Right to Dignity under Article 21, get seriously undermined under this code, especially for live-in couples. Mandatory live-in relationship registration is an invasive state intrusion into people’s personal lives, where couples are forced to divulge sensitive personal information to the government apparatus. The right to privacy is violated when the state puts a similar degree of restrictions upon the live-in relationships as those under marriage, by equating the two. The sharing of registration details with local police authorities is mandatorily required by the UCC  . Police involvement in confirming the legitimacy of relationships might deter couples from registering or living together due to the possibility that sensitive personal information being misused or shared without authorisation can cause people to experience discrimination, blackmail, or targeted harassment, which undermines confidence in government agencies.

Such measures even strike at the heart of the Right to Dignity as enshrined under Article 21, which comprises Individual Autonomy and the freedom to make intimate personal decisions free from disproportionate state interference. The present regulatory framework risks undermining the dignity of consenting live-in relationship couples by institutionalising coercive surveillance, stigma and moral scrutiny through mandatory verification mechanisms.

Also, there is a great chance that family members who don’t support interfaith, inter-caste or nonmarital relationships will engage in moral policing and intrusion. Even via obtaining information from landlords, people may attempt to harass these couples by making fictitious complaints to the local police. Moreover, the dignity of young adults (18-20 years) also gets violated due to the mandatory condition of obtaining parental consent, thus obstructing their independent decision-making power about their personal relationships. 

4. Hardships created by the UCC Act for Women in live-in relationships:  

The live-in relationship provisions under the Uttarakhand UCC, especially related to mandatory registration, a wide range of verification powers to the registrar and denial of registration on grounds such as "public policy" and "morality," which are vaguely defined, have the potential risk of being enforced more as surveillance rather than as recognition. The Code violates the privacy and dignity of the couple by putting an obligation upon them to disclose their personal information to the officials. This can lead to women being subjected to increased family pressure and societal stigma in situations wherein the concept of live-in relationships is still not accepted by society. The provisions related to making non-registration illegal and giving wide discretionary powers to the registrar negatively obstruct the dignity, privacy and autonomy of a woman as well as make it difficult for her to engage in an interfaith live-in relationship. This is because often women are construed as being responsible for maintaining the sanctity of a family and sexual morality, which eventually leads to the defeat of one of the main provisions of this code, i.e. ensuring greater dignity and autonomy for women. 

Moving towards bridging the gaps and concerns under the Uttarakhand UCC Act for live-in couples: 

1. Replace Mandatory Policing with Incentivised Registration: 

An amendment should be made to replace compulsory registration of live-in relationships with a voluntary but beneficial model which encourages participation without coercion. This approach reflects the 21st Law Commission’s Report that cautioned against over-interference by the State into private unions. Moreover, registration should provide benefits such as providing simplified joint tenancy, easier access to maintenance and automatic nomination rights in banking and insurance to the live-in couple by drawing inspiration from the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867. This ensures compliance with the registration process by providing benefits rather than fear and also ensures dignity and legal protection to Live-in relationship couples. 

2. Modify the Age of autonomy from 21 to 18 years: 

The age requirement for independent registration and applicability of this act should be changed for both partners from the present 21 years to 18 years in order to comply with marriage laws and the legal age of majority as per the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867 and the Indian Majority Act 1875. This eliminates the paradoxical requirement that women who are otherwise legally able to vote and get married upon attaining the age of 18 have to obtain parental consent to enter into a live-in relationship.

3. Bring Gender-Neutral Terminology by modifying "man and woman" to "two persons" :

This change in definition under Section 3(4)(b) of the present Code would immediately give statutory recognition and legal protections in matters of maintenance and succession to LGBTQIA+ couples. This shall ensure that the UCC Act becomes compliant with various Supreme Court rulings, such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) and Supriyo v. Union of India (2023)  and promote uniformity and inclusivity.  

4. Secular Affidavit over Religious Certification:

There should be an amendment made that states that religious leaders should no longer be required to certify the allowance and this should be substituted by a Self-Declaration Affidavit in which Live-in relationship partners attest to their consent and unmarried single status. This amendment is also in line with the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867, which prioritised a civil registrar over religious authorities. This reform is crucial in order to ensure that live-in relationships are not impeded due to traditional religious norms and strengthen the notion that the Uniform Civil Code must be based on constitutional morality rather than religious consent and customs.

5. Protecting Privacy and Dignity along with empowerment of women:

There needs to be an amendment that prevents sharing personal data with the police without a court order, which ensures privacy and dignity by preventing misuse of state machinery. Women-led Fast Track tribunals can be established under Section 388 in order to empower women more financially. This amendment is also in consonance with the fundamental right to Dignity, which was laid down in the  Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union of India (2018).

Conclusion

In conclusion, although Uttarakhand’s UCC aspires to fulfil the constitutional mandate as given under Article 44, its current framework regulating live-in relationships risks transforming a shield of protection into a sword of state surveillance. The Code creates a constitutional paradox by institutionalising moral policing and violating the autonomy as well as privacy of live-in relationship couples, which ultimately contradicts the progressive jurisprudence laid down by Justice K.S.Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union of India (2018) and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018).  The Code must draw inspiration and adopt the secular inclusivity from the 21st Law Commission’s Report and Portuguese Civil Code of 1867 to truly reflect the constitutional moralities of ensuring dignity, privacy and autonomy to the couple and preventing state overreach in the private matters of its citizens under the altar of legislative uniformity.

*Rohan Yadav is a 2nd Year Law Student pursuing B.A. LL.B (Hons.) at Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai.

The views expressed above are the author's alone and do not represent the beliefs of Family Law Chronicle: The CFL Blog.