Female Partner In Live-In Relation Is 'Vulnerable': Uttarakhand HC; State Govt Asserts UCC Implemented After Consultation

A bench of Justice Manoj Tiwari and Justice Ashish Naithani also asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state government, if the UK Government had invited suggestions before considering them and incorporating them into the law.

In response, SG Mehta submitted that the law was introduced after suggestions were invited from the public and after a thorough consultation process. He emphasized that each provision was drafted with a specific objective in mind.

He further stated that the UCC rules concerning live-in relationships were designed to protect the woman, whom he described as the vulnerable partner.

The bench was hearing the pleas filed by Dr Uma Bhatt, Kamla Pant, and Munish Kumar, as well as a live-in couple from Uttarakhand, represented by Advocate Vrinda Grover. Both petitions challenge UCC provisions, especially the rules regarding mandatory registration of live-in relationships.

Before the Division bench, Advocate Grover argued that the UCC Act and Rules allow untrammelled state surveillance and policing of choices that fall within the protected zone of right to privacy. She submitted that UCC should establish a draconian statutory regime of inquiry, authorisation, and penalisation for the choices of partners.

During the hearing, Justice Tiwari noted that while the practice of a man and woman living together without a marital bond has traditionally been frowned upon, societal values were now changing.

He added that the law in question was merely accommodating these changes in an attempt to ensure that the rights of women, as well as those of children born within such relationships, are protected.

To this, Advocate Grover responded by arguing that UCC, which is being touted as essential for securing the rights of women, if read in-depth, will heighten harassment and violence against women and couples who don't ascribe to the majoritarian sanctions.

She also highlighted that the law requires any person to file a complaint to question the validity of a live-in relationship. Her stance before the HC was that social morality must not be allowed to subvert constitutional morality.

Furthermore, referring to the Supreme Court's 2017 judgement in the case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors., Advocate Grover, stressing the right to privacy, argued that the Law would in clear violating of this judgment of the SC.

On the other hand, SG Mehta sought time to file a reply, assuring that he would suggest something that could satisfy the court and the petitioner. He also added that the petitioner may not worry as the SG was himself in the court.

Posting the matter for April 1 along with other similar matters, on the request of Advocate Grover, the Court recorded in its order that “if any penal action is initiated against any individual, they are at liberty to move this bench”.