'What privacy is invaded?': Uttarakhand HC on live-in relationship registration
What's the story
The Uttarakhand High Court has examined a petition challenging the compulsory registration of live-in relationships under the state's Uniform Civil Code (UCC). The court, headed by Chief Justice G Narendar, asked how the requirement violated privacy when couples were already "openly living together." The court rejected allegations of privacy invasion, stressing that the UCC seeks to give legal recognition and safeguard individual rights.
Privacy debate
Petitioner argues UCC provision intrudes on personal choices
The petitioner, Jai Tripathi, contended that the UCC provision "institutionalized gossip and intruded on personal choices." His counsel, Abhijay Negi, referred to a 2017 Supreme Court judgment highlighting the right to privacy. However, Chief Justice Narendar countered this argument by asking what secrecy or privacy was invaded when couples are openly living together without marriage.
Legal scrutiny
Court questions petitioner's reasoning on privacy invasion
The bench further questioned Tripathi's reasoning, pointing out that live-in partners were already known to neighbors and society. "You are brazenly living together without there being a marriage. And then what is the secret? What is the privacy that is invaded?" Chief Justice Narender noted. The state's counsel argued that the UCC merely required registration without any declaration requirement. The court expressed displeasure over what it termed "bizarre arguments" raised by the petitioner during this legal scrutiny.
Social impact
Court suggests societal enlightenment on live-in relationships
During the hearing, Tripathi cited the case of a young man allegedly killed in Almora for being in an inter-faith live-in relationship. The court suggested efforts should be made to enlighten society on such issues. It added if any coercive action was taken against people due to their live-in status, they could seek relief from the court.
Legal implications
UCC's aim and critics' concerns over mandatory registration
The UCC was implemented on January 27 and the state government claims that it ensures legal equality and protects women's and children's rights. However, critics argue that compulsory registration violates privacy and may institutionalize societal scrutiny. They have expressed concerns over possible misuse of personal information and repercussions on inter-faith couples due to this legal requirement under the UCC. The matter will be next heard on April 1.