If you are a woman who would like the government and courts to protect you from crimes, you will have to purchase one of those GPS tracking ankle bracelets which will constantly relay your movement to the nearest police station, file monthly forms about which areas you travel to, which people you meet and upload an hourly selfie.
This is, of course, for your safety. Don’t you want to be safe? Oh, you want safety and you want the government to exhaust its precious resources in protecting you but you can’t even concede a little “freedom”? Freedom is a western construct and, yes, it is true that the Supreme Court and the Indian Constitution say you should have it but you know there are limits to freedom also; you can’t have absolute freedom.
The aforementioned paragraphs are not completely true yet, but we are close. Allow me to explain.
Two developments took place in India in January 2025 in the context of live-in relationships.
- The ‘rules’ of the Uniform Civil Code passed by the Uttarakhand government – which are not uniform at all but that’s another discussion – came into effect on January 2, 2025.
- In a judgment passed recently, the Rajasthan high court, in the context of a couple in a live-in relationship approaching the court for safety, proceeded to shame and patronise women, and then frame this registration business for live-in relationships as something necessary for the safety of women and their rights. There is also a concern for “children”.
The socio-political-personal context
Before launching into a critique of the Uttarakhand law or the Rajasthan high court judgment, it is critical to point out some facts to remind ourselves of some ground truths to see these with some clarity.
Families in conservative societies, such as India, fundamentally and constantly act to diminish and control women across all stages of their life. What a woman should wear, should she work or not, when and who she should marry, what career choices are permitted etc are common discussions.
This diminishing aspect is largely framed to signify that men are a threat, and that this is a means to protect you – a woman – from that threat. But this is only one part of the story. The second part is more important, and one that many well-meaning people miss when they urge everyone to teach boys/men to do better.
A belief system
There is a near-unanimous belief in conservative societies such as India, one that is disguised in many ways, and something most Indians, including those in power, believe but don’t say explicitly. If they say it, they say it in a way which is deceitful enough to offer plausible deniability.
The belief is that women are inferior to men; they will always be inferior. They are tainted and are at high risk of causing their benefactors shame unless someone takes ownership.
Men, acting through families, courts, legislative assemblies and so on, must own women, keep them in line, prevent them from sinning and causing shame. When they succeed, they are able to psychologically mutilate women also by convincing them that they are bearers of shame, sinful by virtue of their existence – that they are someone who needs to be watched.
Also read: Not in the Name of Gender Justice: Reflections on Uttarakhand’s UCC
Since women are property, the other, the enemy, must not be allowed to steal this property. Who this other is depends on who you are speaking to. However, the other is dehumanised and women are just property – there is no relationship possible here. Love, intimacy, desire, friendship, community? Not applicable.
The other can only loot the property and conquer. This must be avoided at all costs.
These beliefs are regressive, primitive and cruel. They are smartly kept hidden under the veneer of what looks like a functioning society with institutions, malls, etc. It is true that there are pockets in India which are an exception to this rule.
It is also true that there are various manifestations here – in some families, there is no restriction on clothes or work but even that is seen as a concession and not a rightful freedom.
This is not to engage in polemic or hyperbole – these are dull facts of the lived reality of women in India.
Now, with this context in place, let us understand the Uttarakhand UCC and the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment. Let’s start with the law.
UCC: A large-scale medieval surveillance
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) of Uttarakhand Act, 2024, a law enacted by the Uttarakhand government, makes it mandatory to register live-in relationships from the date of its “commencement” – and makes the failure to do so an offence.
- To register, one has to inform the government about all their previous live-in relationships or marriages, regardless of whether they were registered or not. Basically, they want your dating history.
- If either of the “registrants” is less than 21 years of age, their parents are informed.
- The registration requires a certificate from a priest.
- An application for registration, or for the “termination of live-in” relationship, results in an enquiry from the registrar, who consults religious leaders, local police stations, “community heads” and others. This registrar can also consult his own “sources” without disclosing their identities to the applicants.
- If either of the partners is married to someone else, a live-in relationship cannot be registered.
- In fact, as per Section 378 (1) of the Act, say you are residents of Kerala, in a live-in relationship, visiting Uttarakhand for a friend’s wedding or on a work trip. You are legally obligated to report your relationship to this registrar, or risk prison and/or fine.
The most obvious critique here is that of these requirements being illogical or absurd and that part is self-evident.
When does a live-in relationship “commence”? Is it a live-in relationship if two individuals sharing a flat, who began purely as flatmates but have slept together and share a deep bond, don’t want to give a name to it?
Which young person living in Indian cities even knows who their “community head” is? The provision which makes non-registration an offence, basically converts the entire state – and soon country, with many BJP states mimicking this – into a surveillance squad. This is reminiscent not only of 1930s Germany but also of medieval Church-controlled Europe, with the entire citizenry tasked with the noble duty of reporting sexual/relationship deviance and turning against each other.
This is hell on earth for people in non-married partnerships.
There is also the forbidding of people in marriages entering a live-in relationship. Sometimes couples separate without getting a divorce but stay friends while pursuing other relationships. Sometimes divorces are prolonged and last for years and during this time couples find other companionship.
The government basically wants people in prolonged, contested divorce to not have any other companionship. For what good?
The ‘logic’ behind the law
The ”logical” defence is that women in live-in relationships claim maintenance – what about the children from such relationships etc. This is easily countered: various high courts, as well as the Supreme Court have already, in many judgments, decided what has to happen in such cases. Problem solved.
Those judgments understand “choice” and “consent”. They don’t unveil the largest community surveillance in the history of humanity.
They did not launch a large-scale invasion on privacy, demanding that women sit in front of babus and narrate their sexual histories.
No, because that would be a lecherous babu’s fantasy – a permit raj for connection and intimacy.
Also read: Uttrakhand’s Uniform Civil Code Is a Mere Extension of Highly Controlled Lives Indian Women Lead
To argue logic or look for logic is to miss the point. The Uttarakhand law mandates a 16-page form, Aadhaar details and an OTP-linked enquiry.
What is the first thought anyone would have?
It is easier to get married. It really is. As long as you are both from the same religion, at least.
The impulse behind such laws sees anything except a parent, religion and government sanctioned intercourse as sinful and immoral. That is its primary motive.
Rajasthan high court: A defender of the constitution or society?
The Rajasthan high court judgment is peppered with weakly, disguised shaming of live-in relationships with observations like:
“Not a crime or sin though socially unacceptable in our country”
“Does not amount to offence though perceived as immoral”
“Though it is considered immoral by society and not accepted by public at large”
Which society? Which public? Does the public in Meghalaya consider it immoral or unacceptable? What about the public in Goa, Kerala or Tamil Nadu? Is it the case in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata or Bengaluru?
Is the definition of ‘society’ the value system espoused by the most regressive collective of people? Do people in courts and legislative assemblies swear by the constitution or by what is considered unacceptable by the public at large?
The Rajasthan high court went on to patronise women unabashedly. It observed:
“…status of women in such relationship is not of wife and lacks social approval or sanctity”
and also,
“…women in such relationships are found to be sufferers”
What is the status of a wife? As the law stands today, a ‘wife’ in India suffers because they cannot prosecute marital rape, even when he kills her in the process but women in live-in relationships can.
As per the National Family Health Survey 5 (2019-21), “Among married women aged 18-49 who have ever experienced sexual violence, 83 per cent report their current husband and 13 per cent report a former husband as perpetrator.”
Whose status is better then, a person able to prosecute sexual violence against them or one who is not able to?
In the eyes of the Uttarakhand government and the Rajasthan high court, women are not adults capable of making choices. Women cannot come to court if there is a child whose rights need to be protected, as the Supreme Court already allows them to.
To remedy this, the Uttarakhand government and the Rajasthan high court want to unleash surveillance and harassment against every unmarried person in the country.
The Rajasthan High Court has called live-in relationships a western idea which India is “slowly opening its door to”. The irony is that the court stating this in response to a couple coming to it seeking police protection fearing threat to their life and liberty.
However, the court says the police are too busy and “dozens” of petitions are being filed.
If someone’s life and liberty were in danger, it is the job of the police and courts to protect it as per the contract a citizen has with the state. The failure of the state and the courts cannot be used as an excuse to uphold rule of law, and to unleash moral policing.
It is unsurprising that the court sees Indian civilisation as static. The courts may do well to understand that policing sexuality and intimacy is also a western concept – one from the medieval ages.
The chief motive
Let us now come to the second, most important, motive behind these laws and judgements.
If a Hindu woman tries to marry a man from another religion, especially Muslim, under the Special Marriage Act, the couple – often just the groom – is violently beaten up.
The families are threatened and often forced to call off the marriage. What choice do those individuals have? Perhaps they could have lived and loved in peace, without marriage. However, that “loophole” must also be closed.
It is already happening: while the government claims that the information is “encrypted”, Bajrang Dal “leaders” claim they have access to the information and are already “checking it”.
Is it surprising that these courts and legislative assemblies haven’t just said that interfaith marriage is banned. It will save so much time, won’t it? However, then the mask would come off.
The masquerade of a functional democracy with the rule of law has its uses. Perhaps, it is time for us Indians to once again echo Varun Grover and say “Hum kaagaz nahin dikhayenge (We won’t show you our papers)”.
Dushyant Arora is a lawyer and research consultant based in Mumbai.
