While hearing two PILs—one by Uttarakhand social activists and another by a live-in couple challenging the State’s UCC Act’s constitutional validity.
Uttarakhand: Today, 27th Feb, The Uttarakhand High Court discussed the increasing acceptance of live-in relationships while also noting that they might not be fully accepted in Indian society.
The Court observed that the new Uniform Civil Code (UCC) law seeks to adjust to these changes while safeguarding the rights of women and children born from such relationships.
A Bench comprising Justices Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Ashish Naithani made this remark while hearing two Public Interest Litigations (PILs). One PIL was filed by social activists from Uttarakhand, and the other was filed by a couple in a live-in relationship who challenged the constitutional validity of the State’s UCC Act.
The Court issued a notice and combined these petitions with similar pending pleas. It scheduled the hearing for April 1.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the petitioners, argued that the UCC Act and its related Rules allow for “excessive state surveillance and policing of personal choices, which fall within the ambit of the right to privacy.”
She pointed out that the UCC establishes a “stringent statutory framework involving inquiry, authorisation and penalisation of partner choices.”
Justice Tiwari, during the hearing, asked whether just requiring live-in relationships to be registered could be considered unconstitutional.
Responding to this, Grover stated that even though the law is being presented as a step towards protecting women’s rights, in reality, “it could instead heighten harassment and violence against women and couples who do not conform to majoritarian norms.”
She further expressed concerns that the law allows parents and outsiders to access personal details of couples who register their live-in relationships. This, she argued, “enables vigilantism.”
Additionally, she mentioned that the law permits “any individual to file a complaint questioning the validity of a live-in relationship.”
Grover emphasized that “social morality should not override constitutional morality.”
She also contended that making Aadhaar details mandatory for registration violates the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Puttaswamy case.
Solicitor General for India, Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Uttarakhand government, assured the Court that “the matter was being examined.”
He argued that “the UCC Act, 2024 does not violate the right to privacy but serves as a regulatory mechanism aimed at protecting women who are often vulnerable and face injustice.”
Mehta also highlighted that the law was created after “extensive consultations with all relevant stakeholders.”
After hearing these arguments, the Court issued a notice and recorded Grover’s request, stating that
“if any penal action is initiated against any individual, they are at liberty to move this bench.”
First PIL:
In the first PIL, a couple in a consensual live-in relationship challenged the law. While the woman’s family supported their relationship, the man’s family opposed it, and his brother even issued threats. This forced them to live in rented accommodation.
The couple fears that the new UCC law, which makes live-in relationship registration mandatory under Section 381(1) and introduces penalties, including jail time from February 27, 2025, will expose them to harassment and legal trouble.
The woman, who identifies as queer, argued that the law forces her to register under a “heteronormative framework,” which “violates her right to self-determination.”
The plea further argued that the UCC Act, 2024, and UCC Rules, 2025 violate fundamental rights such as “privacy, dignity, decisional, associational and reproductive autonomy.”
It also stated that mandatory registration, summary inquiry, and police notification provisions were “unconstitutional, exposing couples to harassment, coercion and violence.”
Additionally, the petitioners claimed that the Act’s “binary gender framework fails to recognise diverse gender identities, infringing upon constitutionally guaranteed rights upheld by the Supreme Court of India.”
Second PIL:
The second PIL was filed by three individuals, including social activists and a senior journalist with 26 years of experience in social justice and disaster relief.
They argued that the UCC was “regressive and symbolic,” failing to address the deeper causes of gender violence. Instead of fulfilling the progressive vision of Article 44 of the Constitution, it “falls short of the egalitarian vision.”
The petitioners also criticized the law for excluding Scheduled Tribes, transgender individuals, and LGBTQIA+ persons. They contended that this “deepens legal inequities rather than fostering true equality.”
Moreover, the plea pointed out that the law lacks proper procedural safeguards, raising
“concerns about its implementation and potential misuse, risking further marginalisation of vulnerable communities.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
