Uttarakhand HC asks if state can seek fresh suggestions on UCC over live-in relationships

Nainital, Feb 28 (PTI) The Uttarakhand High Court has asked the state government whether it can invite suggestions afresh on the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) and consider making amendments wherever necessary.

A division bench of the high court comprising senior Justices Manoj Tiwari and Ashish Naithani posed the query on Thursday to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta while hearing two new petitions challenging the UCC’s provisions regarding live-in relationships.

Mehta who attended the hearing via video-conferencing responded by saying all suggestions are always welcome.

According to Chief Standing Counsel C S Rawat, the court also orally asked the Solicitor General to request the state assembly to implement necessary amendments to the UCC which was brought into effect in the state on January 27.

The court also asked the state through the chief standing counsel whether it would be willing to make the necessary tweaks in the UCC.

The PILs heard on Thursday challenged the constitutionality of information sought from live-in couples at the time of their mandatory registration, alleging that they had the potential to intrude upon their privacy.

The high court has clubbed the PILs with similar petitions filed in the court earlier which will collectively be heard again on April 1.

It has given the state four weeks to file a counter affidavit in the case.

While hearing the PILs, the court asked Vrinda Grover, the counsel of one of the petitioners, if the UCC’s provisions regarding compulsory registration of live-in relationships could be challenged as unconstitutional.

Live-in relationships are on the rise but they do not have complete social sanction, the court said.

The law is only seeking to accommodate changing times and giving protection to the rights of women in live-in relationships and children born out of such alliances, the court said.

Appearing for the petitioners, Grover said the provisions of the UCC regarding registration of live-in relationships intrude into the personal sphere with surveillance and policing.

She questioned the provisions under which every information provided by live-in couples at the time of their mandatory registration would pass immediately into the hands of the police.

The police have the authority to take “appropriate action” in case of a violation but “appropriate action” is not defined in the Act, she said.

Grover also questioned the justification of women being asked under the UCC if they are terminating a live-in relationship and whether they are pregnant, saying it was a violation of their privacy.

Instead of giving protection to women, such provisions can make women worse off by passing private details to authorities, which could lead to their harassment and social coercion, she said.