UCC live-in registration | ‘State barging into bedrooms,’ says young India
x
While a few argued that the registration of a live-in relationship will benefit women and teens, most panned the state for infringing on the private lives of citizens | Representative image

UCC live-in registration | ‘State barging into bedrooms,’ says young India

As The Federal asked young Indians from Kochi to Jodhpur whether they supported the registration of live-in relationships, anger just flowed in


The BJP government in Uttarakhand on Monday (January 27) became the first Indian state to implement the Uniform Civil Code (UCC). As part of it, it also became the first state to make registration of all live-in relationships mandatory, as the UCC mandates.

While many have panned the move as a serious infringement of the fundamental rights and privacy of citizens, there are arguments on the other side of the divide too. The Federal spoke to several live-in couples and others across the country and sought their opinions on the development. While almost all of them felt the government was “barging into their bedrooms”, many asked how a live-in relationship would now differ from a marriage. Not surprisingly, some have backed the state too.

‘Law interfering in private lives’

A young couple living together in Bengaluru, who refused to be identified, said while the idea of the UCC has its good and bad sides, what bothers them more is the part about making live-in relationships official.

“It’s nice to think of one law for everyone, no matter their religion or caste—it sounds fair. But it also feels unfair when some groups are still left out,” said one of them.

“And why should adults be forced to register their personal choices? It feels like the law is interfering in our private lives. If the goal of the UCC is to bring people together, it shouldn’t end up dividing us or making us feel judged,” the person added.

Also read: Uttarakhand becomes first state to implement Uniform Civil Code

‘Implementation may be a challenge’

Another young Bengaluru resident, Vivek Pathak, felt registering live-in relationships is an unnecessary intervention in private affairs. Also, its implementation is likely to be a challenge due to generation gaps or clashing beliefs.

Shameem Pallekoodel, a private sector employee living in Bengaluru, also felt the same way. “If live-in relationships need to be registered, it will be seen as an infringement of the personal liberty of an adult,” said Pallekoodel.

Social taboos and family interference

In the more conservative states, the move to register live-in relationships has come as a bolt from the blue. Young couples often live together without the knowledge of their respective families and they are a worried lot.

“This March, we will complete two years of living together. After a year into our relationship, we decided to move in together. It made sense for us as it let us spend more time together after our jobs and was more economical than paying two rents. However, we are yet to tell our respective families,” said Gaurav (28), a resident of Jodhpur, Rajasthan, whose partner Kripa is from Madhya Pradesh.

“We are consenting adults and we are trying to build a life for ourselves. There is already a taboo in our society about unmarried couples living together, which is why we have not involved our families yet. Especially my family, who are from Rajasthan, are very conservative. They would never be okay with this arrangement,” he added.

“The idea of the government being involved in this situation is unthinkable for us. It’s an absolute infringement on our rights. People choose to live together for various reasons. How is that the State’s business?” he fumed.

No place to hide

Sumita (name changed) (32) from Jamnagar district shared the same concern. She works at an NGO in Ahmedabad, while her partner, also from Jamnagar, works as an electrician in the city. He is a Dalit while Sumita belongs to the much “higher” Darbar (Kshatriya) caste.

“We have been living together for five years now. We have no other option. My family is totally against our relationship. In 2022, we eloped and tried to get married in another district, but my family stormed the registry office. My family is socially influential, so nobody stopped them when they dragged me back to our village,” narrated Sumita.

“Couples like us get no help from police either. Even the police support the families that try to control consenting adults who wish to live together. Couples would not have any say in their relationship if this law is implemented in Gujarat,” said Sumita who ran away from home again within a month.

“Since then, we have been living together in Ahmedabad. It helped us keep a low profile. What would be the difference between getting married and living together if we have to declare our relationship?” she asked.

Also read: Uttarakhand to implement UCC today; here’s what will change

‘State barging into our bedrooms’

Reshmita Kumar (32) of Kochi wondered exactly the same thing: How would a live-in relationship now differ from a marriage if it has to be registered? The cyber finance manager has been living in with her partner, Harsh Vikram (32), a software engineer), for six years now.

“We haven’t registered our relationship because we don’t want the state intervening in our personal lives—it’s a political choice. We’ve been living together for the past six years and are planning to have a child this year. If the government forces us to register, how is that any different from a marriage? It’s blatant interference by the state in our private lives; I would say it’s like barging into our bedrooms,” said Reshmita.

“It isn’t just about us or any individual for that matter,” she asserted. “It reflects the attitude of an authoritarian dispensation.”

‘Same rights as marriage?’

Athira PM (46), a Kozhikode-based lawyer who specialises in family laws and identifies herself as a feminist, agreed with Reshmita.

“This transforms live-in relationships into something akin to a marriage. A similar indication was present in the Domestic Violence Act. Those seeking legal protection typically choose marriage—there’s no doubt about that. So, why would a couple opt for this?” she wondered.

“Besides, it remains unclear whether registered live-in couples will enjoy the same rights or legal protections as married couples. Globally, live-in relationships generally involve no registration or state intervention. This move will undoubtedly restrict the free and independent nature of such arrangements,” she pointed out.

Also read: Live-in relationships not part of our culture, harm sex ratio: Nitin Gadkari

What about legal benefits?

Veni (name changed), 32, from Chennai, also asked if live-in relationships offer none of the legal benefits that marriage comes with, such as financial security and inheritance rights, why should couples be forced to register their relationships. “This feels like a new level of social policing. What will the government do with this data?” she demanded.

“Inter-caste and inter-religious married couples already face discrimination and threats—imagine the risks for live-in couples if their relationship status is made public. People who want to live together will find a way anyway,” she added.

Lennox (name changed), a PG student in Chennai in his mid-20s, asked if one is still uncertain about a relationship, why should s/he be forced to inform the government? “I wouldn’t want my family to find out, and I fear they might be notified. If this rule spreads to other states, the number of live-in relationships will drop drastically. Maybe that’s exactly what they’re aiming for,” he offered.

Protection for adolescents, women?

Telangana High Court advocate Soubhagya Lakshmi’s was one of the rare voices that supported the move. “Adolescents in the early stages of attraction often struggle to differentiate between right and wrong. The UCC serves as a crucial guide and protects them in this vulnerable phase. Additionally, it provides legal advantages for women in situations where there is a disparity in assets,” Soubhagya, 60, said.

Chennai-based software employee Keerthana (32, name changed) also felt that registering her live-in relationship with the government would make logistical aspects, such as finding housing, easier. “In conservative areas, it might reduce the stigma and judgment from landlords,” she pointed out.

Also read: No, Nirmala Sitharaman, patriarchy isn’t a ‘leftist jargon’; it’s the system we live in

‘Less protection, more interference’

But at the same time, she voiced her concerns. “Will this go on my permanent record? What if my relationship doesn’t lead to a marriage or if I choose a different partner later? Will I have to undergo the same bureaucratic process again? This feels less like a protective measure and more like state interference in personal choices,” she concluded.

Shanti Prabodha, 55, writer and activist from Hyderabad, doubted whether the move would actually benefit women, as touted. “I’m not sure this Act (UCC) truly offers any substantial protection to women. Tragically, we continue to see women, even those in so-called legally-tied relationships, becoming victims of violence. On a positive note, it’s worth mentioning that the Act excludes Scheduled Castes from its provisions,” she said.

May cause ‘emotional turmoil’

Clinical psychologist Mahesh Sangha, 33, the president of the Telugu Association of Clinical Psychologists, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, also doubted whether the law would have any beneficial effect on youngsters. On the contrary, he felt the implementation of UCC regulations may cause “emotional turmoil” to young people who are used to a carefree approach to love. “This change can be challenging for them to embrace,” he felt.

Shivakumar B (32), a software employee in Hyderabad, also felt that “trying to control the natural behaviour of young people” was “atrocious”. “Love affairs and dating and marriages are governed by natural laws. The emotional behaviour defies the taboos imposed by religious text. Any attempt to deny this freedom is bad. If that is the message of UCC, one should be careful about its implementation,” he asserted.

(With inputs from Naveen Ammembala in Karnataka, Rajeev Ramachandran in Kerala, Damayantee Dhar in Gujarat, Nisha PS in Tamil Nadu, Rachana Srungavarapu in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, and Abhishek Rawat in Delhi.)

Read More
Next Story