- INTRODUCTION
Uttarakhand has turned into the first State in quite a while to carry out a Uniform Common Code (UCC). With the exception of the Scheduled Tribes, the Uttarakhand Assembly was the first legislature in independent India to pass a Bill governing marriage, divorce, inheritances, and live-in relationships. This Bill is the most important move towards the codification of the regulations relating to live-in-relationship and giving lawful acknowledgment to the live-in couples. The Bill so passed, proposes normal principles on marriage, divorce, inheritance of property, and live-in connections for all occupants of Uttarakhand, with the exception of Scheduled Tribes, no matter what their religion or confidence. This regulation of Uttarakhand comes from Article 44, Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution of India, 1950, which guides the state for implementation in India. The provisions of this Bill reach out to the entire State of Uttarakhand and furthermore apply to the residents of Uttarakhand who lives outside the territory of Uttarakhand, except the tribal community of the state.
- JUDICIAL EVOLUTION OF LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP
Indian law has developed as much through legal precedents as through regulation. The judiciary in this way, had played an importance of paramount significance in Indian law, and through it, frequently even the popular opinion. It has done so not just by maintaining the law as it exists, yet additionally by striking down or interpreting the law in unambiguous ways when the need emerges, when a circumstance requiring such activity is brought before it. With regards to live-in relationship, the courts in India have had a complex up to this point.
In the case of Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others a couple living respectively for a very long time of 50 years was presumed to be married by the Supreme Court. The court said that such a presumption could be proved wrong with the right evidence, but that the long-term nature of the relationship would make it so. Additionally, in Tulsa versus Durghatiya, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had reiterated that there would be a presumption of marriage when there has been long cohabitation. Additionally in the case of S. Khushboo versus Kanniammal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had declared the live-in relationships between the consenting adults as legal and non-criminal. The judgment of S. Khushboo is considered as one of the major sources for considering the live-in relationships between the live-in partners.
- LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP IN UCC BILL: A BANE FOR COUPLES?
3.1 Meaning and Obligations
Among many arrangements which public was having eye on, one striking piece is the Part III of the draft UCC Bill, governing the “Live-in Relationship” in the State of Uttarakhand. At the outset, live-in relationship has been defined under Section 3 (4) (b) of the Bill as a relation between a man and a woman who cohabit in a shared household through a relationship in relation to a marriage, nonetheless, the said relations are not prohibited. Additionally, the shared household, according to Section 3 (4) (c) of the Bill, is a household where a man and a lady, not being minors live under the same roof, either in a rental accommodation or in a house jointly owned by or by any of them, or any other accommodation.
Section 378 of the said Bill makes it mandatory for the partners in a live in relationship who are residing in the State as a live-in couple, to submit “statement of the live-in relationship” to the Registrar within whose jurisdiction, the couples are living.” As per Section 384, couples who have ended their previous relationship are also required to provide a “Statement of Termination.”
3.2 Relationship in Nature of Marriage
It is pertinent to point out the phrase “relationship in the nature of marriage”, which is a very ambiguous term. It can be well figured under Section 2 (f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Payal Katara Versus Superintendent, Nari Niketan and others held that live-in-relationship is not illegal. The court said that a man and a lady can live respectively according to this wise, even without getting married. It is further stated that it could be immoral for the general public however it is not illegal. Additionally, the Supreme Court in D. Velusamy Versus D. Patchainammal has held that not every relationship in the nature of marriage should likewise satisfy few fundamental criteria. Merely spouting weekends together or a one might stand would not make it a domestic relationship. It also held that if a man has a “keep” whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and / or as a servant it would not in their opinion, be a relationship in nature of marriage. Consequently, the draft UCC Bill doesn’t affect all live-in relationship accordingly, yet just those which qualify the criteria of the ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’.
3.3 Live-in Partners of less than 21 years
The concerning issue for the couple of less than twenty one years is that the said statement shall be informed by the Registrar to their parents/guardians. As, the right to chose its own partner lies simply with the individual itself and the same was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shafin Jahan v Asokan K.M. and Ors. It’s material to mention here that it’ll not be a point of dissent that intimation to the parents will injure the right to choice of an individual, thus the said provision is in conflict with the legal and logical position. As it was also observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that right to choose life partner is a fundamental right under Indian Constitution in the case of Shakti Vahini versus UOI. Therefore, the provision of UCC Bill, in this regard can be contrary to the well settled position of law.
3.4 Privacy vis a vis Live-in Relationship in UCC Bill: “A tool to harass”
The right to privacy has not been envisaged under the Indian Constitution, 1950, however, the same has been made a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of KS Puttuswamy versus UOI.
The Bill stands out not only by recognizing live- in relationships and affiliated rights, but also mandating their registration as per Section 378 of the Bill, alongwith an intimation to the parents of the couples who are under the age of 21 years as per Section 385 (3) of the Bill. Additionally, as per Section 382 of the Bill, it has become mandatory for keeping the records of the registration record. It can be observed from the bare perusal of the provisions of the Bill that the disclosure of personal information is prohibited unless it is directly relevant to a public activity or interest, or unless it is deemed necessary to protect a larger public interest that outweighs the individual’s right to privacy.
As discussed in the abovementioned case of Shafin Jahan v Asokan K.M. and Ors., that the right to chose his own partner lies exclusively with the individual itself, in other words, it corroborated the autonomy of the individuals in choosing their partners, including live- in relationship. However, insisting the couple to register their live-in relationships, prominently of the closed ones like live-in partners, definitely raises worries about infringing their fundamental right of privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Therefore, providing the sensitive details, for the registration of the live-in relationships, with the concerned authorities may lead to misuse, discrimination, and even pressure of the society towards the live-in couples, because of which the live-in couples will not be able to express and accept their relationship before the society. This obligatory process of registering the live-in relationships might demoralize the couple from entering into such relationships due to privacy concerns and fear of shame/disgrace, certainly violating the privacy of an individual and by violating his right to choose the partner.
Apart from the registration of the live-in relationships, the UCC Bill further creates debate pertaining to the issue of violation of privacy by mandating the intimation to parents in thoses cases whereby any of the partners is below the age of 21 years. This provision raises additional concerns about parental overreach and potential conflicts with individuals’ right to privacy and autonomy, particularly for young adults.
Also Read
- CRITICS AND SUGGESTIONS
The primary suggestion is that the age mentioned for informing the parents of the couples of less than 21 years to reduce the said age to 18 years. The procedure of giving information to the police officials by non-registration of live-in might lead to its misuse. Therefore, it is mandatory to point out that the details or the statements given to the concerned police authorities will lead to the infringement of the right to privacy envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 therefore, the said provision ought to be deleted from the Bill. The independence, fairness, and effectiveness of the said Bill raises various worries for the reason being misuse of powers vested with authorities by this Bill and also interference of the parents, relatives, and society do raise questions about its effectiveness and fairness. Therefore, the author suggests that the protection of the right to privacy and right to choose its life partner is necessary while implementing the Bill. Not limited to this, but keeping the registration as mandatory, keeping of the records and intimation to the parents, as envisaged in the UCC Bill, definitely puts legitimate worries about the misuse of the sensitive information and the societal pressure. The author, while exploring the alternative methods, do hereby suggests that self-declaration or cohabitation agreement could offer a more privacy-perceptive approach for the live-in couples.
Article By: Hemant Chaudhry
