When the state interferes in people’s private lives, it sparks debates and disagreements.
In February, the Uttarakhand Assembly passed the Uniform Civil Code Bill, making it the first legislation in an Indian state to propose uniform regulations for marriage, divorce, inheritance, and controversially, live-in relationships for individuals of all religions.
Although discussions around a uniform civil code are not new, implementing it in a diverse and culturally pluralistic society like India presents several challenges. One major criticism is its potential to limit personal choice and autonomy.
Live-in relationships, which have been increasingly accepted and granted legal protection as a valid lifestyle choice, might face increased regulation and monitoring under the code. This interference violates individuals’ rights to privacy and freedom of association, and reinforces conservative societal norms that deem certain relationships morally unacceptable.
The code needs to be examined in the broader context of evolving legal frameworks where laws on conversion and “freedom of religion” scrutinize religious conversions related to marriage, particularly conversions to Islam.
By mandating the registration and investigation of live-in relationships by the registrar, the state positions itself as a guardian or parental figure, as seen in cases like Hadiya vs. the State of Kerala.
Requiring registration of live-in relationships is part of the state’s efforts to regulate love. The need for couples to fill out forms and undergo state scrutiny for intending to enter into a live-in relationship appears burdensome not only for the couples but also for the state, whose resources are strained.
The government’s motivation is to present itself as efficiently managed and assume a parental role, especially for Hindu women, whom they perceive as inherently vulnerable, incapable of making rational personal choices, and in need of protection. It also enables the state to monitor citizens, especially those in relationships considered transgressive like interfaith and inter-caste romantic relationships.
Deeper State: Surveillance and Moral Policing
The Uniform Civil Code is a mechanism for the state to approve a romantic relationship beyond the consent of the individuals involved.
For relationships disapproved by the state, the code allows the registrar to investigate an application from a live-in couple for 30 days before issuing a registration document. It remains unclear what happens if the registrar refuses to issue the document. Would the couples be required to break up?
On a more ominous note, the registration of live-in relationships, particularly those considered undesirable by the majority, such as interfaith relationships, could contribute to a database of couples that might have severe, even fatal, consequences.
This new dataset could empower the state and state-supported vigilante groups to control and influence the dynamics of love within cohabiting relationships. Such measures could inadvertently promote vigilantism through platforms like housing societies and reinforce the concept of the “deeper state,” which operates as a covert entity utilizing surveillance techniques.
The implementation of the code should also be viewed in the context of increasing incidents of vigilantism against cow slaughter within the broader framework of bovine politics in Uttarakhand. The idea of “affective labor for bovine love” – love for the cow framed as love for the state – intertwined with the code discourse on “love jihad” in a sacred Hindu geography is particularly troubling.
By framing the code as a means to uphold traditional Hindu values and safeguard sacred geography, there is a risk of perpetuating a form of Hindu nationalism that prioritizes uniformity over diversity and undermines individual freedom of choice in matters of courtship.
Conspiracy theories like love jihad – which allege that romantic relationships between Muslim men and Hindu women are tactics by Muslim men to convert women to Islam – were often utilized by right-wing Hindu vigilantes. This narrative is now permeating the state’s language and policy. This notion that Muslim men entrap “innocent” Hindu women into marriage is not only blatantly false but is a dangerous conspiracy theory that undermines women’s autonomy and portrays Muslim men as hypersexualized adversaries.
Advocates of the code applaud these provisions for offering protection to women, but conversely, it undermines their decision-making capability. It infantilizes adult women, suggesting they require parental supervision and endorsement for personal choices, reinforcing the idea of women’s reliance on external guidance and shelter.
Legality of Live-in Relationships
Romantic relationships between consenting adults who choose to live together are not illegal but are considered a cultural taboo. The Supreme Court of India has highlighted in several cases that live-in relationships are not criminal, notably in Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. in 2006. Despite this, couples still encounter harassment and bias for basic necessities like housing.
Live-in relationships are also legally recognized under the category of “domestic relationships” in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Despite recognition by the highest court, there are numerous instances of state officials applying their own moral standards to address unmarried couples. A judge of the Allahabad High Court recently remarked that live-in relationships are “timepass” and “temporary.”
The Uttarakhand Code is another attempt to legislate based on morality. Supporters argue that registering live-in relationships is progressive and will provide recognition and protection to those in such relationships, including allowing for claims of maintenance and acknowledging children born from such unions.
However, there are several concerns regarding its provisions and how they might be implemented in practice, given the current socio-political climate in India.
The code defines a “live-in relationship” as “a relationship between a man and a woman, who live together in a shared household in a manner similar to marriage.” This definition is narrower than the Domestic Violence Act. By specifying the gender of the partners, the code excludes queer or same-sex relationships from legal recognition. Additionally, the age requirement for both partners is set at 21, which contradicts marriage laws where the minimum ages for women and men to marry are 18 and 21, respectively. If live-in relationships are equated with marriage, then the differing age limits become irrelevant.
Another issue is that parents or guardians will be informed if the partners are under 21 or for any other reason deemed necessary by the registrar. This could be restrictive, as in many areas, some registrars contact parents and guardians for registering love marriages based on their own moral assumptions, even when both parties are of legal age and no permission is required.
For live-in relationships, it is highly likely that parents and guardians will be contacted, which undermines the autonomy to enter into a relationship of one’s choosing.
Perhaps the most concerning provision of the code is the criminalization of those who fail to register their relationships with the state. This raises the question – why register at all?
To prevent harm to numerous couples, policymakers must approach the issue of live-in relationships under the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code with sensitivity and caution. For any proposed legislation to be effective, it must be inclusive, respecting the diversity of beliefs and lifestyles within the country while upholding fundamental rights and principles of equality and privacy before the law.
Efforts to address social issues should not be exploited for political gains or used to promote divisive agendas that undermine the secular fabric of the nation. Only through genuine dialogue, empathy, and a commitment to pluralism can India navigate the intersection of law, politics, and culture in a way that fosters harmony and justice for all its citizens.
Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.
