The Uttarakhand High Court, while hearing two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging certain provisions of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), observed that female partners in live-in relationships are more vulnerable. The court made this remark while examining concerns regarding the mandatory registration of such relationships under the new UCC framework.
A division bench comprising Justice Manoj Tiwari and Justice Ashish Naithani raised crucial questions during the hearing. Addressing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the state government, the bench inquired whether public opinions were sought before the implementation of the law.
State Government’s Defense of UCC
Responding to the court's queries, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asserted that the UCC was introduced after extensive public consultations. He emphasized that every provision within the UCC, including those governing live-in relationships, was carefully drafted with a defined objective—primarily to protect women in such partnerships.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court: No Presumption of Pending Investigation Without Proof in Sabka Vishwas Scheme Case
"The UCC rules concerning live-in relationships were designed to safeguard the interests of women, who are often the more vulnerable partner," SG Mehta stated.
The petitions challenging these provisions were filed by Dr. Uma Bhatt, Kamla Pant, Munish Kumar, and a live-in couple from Uttarakhand. The couple, represented by Advocate Vrinda Grover, contested the requirement for mandatory registration of live-in relationships, arguing that it infringes on individual rights.
Before the division bench, Advocate Grover strongly contended that the UCC Act and its provisions encourage excessive state surveillance and intervention in personal choices. She emphasized that the law potentially establishes an authoritarian regime by mandating inquiry, authorization, and penal consequences for individuals in live-in relationships.
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Issues Notice on PIL Challenging Withdrawal of Cases Against Influential Persons
"The UCC, which is promoted as a measure to secure women's rights, paradoxically exposes women and couples to heightened harassment and social scrutiny," Advocate Grover argued.
She further pointed out that the law permits any individual to question the validity of a live-in relationship through a formal complaint, which could lead to unnecessary interference in personal affairs. Stressing the concept of constitutional morality, she urged the court to ensure that social morality does not override fundamental rights.
During the proceedings, Justice Tiwari remarked on how societal perspectives on live-in relationships have evolved over time. He acknowledged that while such relationships were traditionally frowned upon, contemporary values are shifting, necessitating legal frameworks that accommodate these changes.
"The law in question seeks to align with modern societal dynamics while ensuring that women and children born out of live-in relationships are legally protected," Justice Tiwari noted.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Stand on Compensation for COVID-19 Vaccine-Related Deaths
However, Advocate Grover remained firm in her stance, arguing that the new UCC regulations, if not carefully examined, could contradict Supreme Court rulings on privacy rights. She referred to the landmark 2017 Supreme Court judgment in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors., which reinforced the fundamental right to privacy.
"The law is in clear violation of the Supreme Court's decision affirming the right to privacy," she asserted.
As the arguments continued, SG Mehta requested additional time to file a detailed response. He assured the court and petitioners that the government would propose a solution that adequately addresses their concerns.
"The petitioners should not be apprehensive. I am personally present in court and will ensure that their concerns are considered," he assured.
In response to Advocate Grover’s request, the High Court scheduled the next hearing for April 1, 2024, along with similar pending matters. The court also recorded in its order:
"If any penal action is initiated against any individual under these provisions, they are at liberty to move this bench for relief."
