menu_open Columnists
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close

Shifting dynamics of live-in relationships

10 0
latest

As the states of Assam, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh prepare for enactment of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) following Uttarakhand which became the first in the country to do so, the discourse around UCC pertaining to individual rights is under much discussion. Amongst these, the regulation of Live -in Relationships (LIRs) is the most under-examined one. The Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code Act, 2024, introduced a mandatory registration framework for LIRs and prescribed legal consequences for non-compliance.

Similar proposals and legislative initiatives on this aspect are emerging from Assam and Gujarat too, reflecting a broader trend towards greater state regulation of intimate relationships outside marriage. These acts depart from the jurisprudential insights of the Supreme Court, which has consistently recognised adults’ autonomy to choose their partners and pursue their intimate lives free from unnecessary state interference. By requiring adults to disclose their status to the government or face criminal punishment, such regulations are prima facie inconsistent with the guarantees of privacy, autonomy, and equality enshrined in Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

The underlying issue is not whether the State has the competence to regulate family law, but whether it can actually bring a level of surveillance on consensual adult relationships in manner that makes it difficult to align with democratic principles. Prior to the enactment of the UCC, whenever a matter concerning the regulation of live-in couples came before High Courts and the Apex Court, they based their decision on constitutional provisions guaranteeing equality and individual autonomy.

These mostly talked of void status of laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights (Article 13), equality and non-discrimination (Articles 14 and 15(3)) and just, fair and reasonable action by the state (Article 19 and 21). The Supreme Court in Indira Sharma versus VKV Sharma held that LIRs consisting of cohabitation and pre-marital sex, if consensual, do........

© The Statesman