Priyanshi*, 27 does not intend to register her live-in relationship with her partner in Pune, even though as permanent residents of Uttarakhand, they are required to do so by the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code.

“Why should we register?” Priyanshi asked. “What benefit or protection will this provide us?”

The new law, which came into effect on January 27, mandates that all persons in live-in relationships within Uttarakhand, as well as all residents of the state temporarily living outside, must register their relationships. Failing to register a live-in relationship could result in imprisonment up to three months and a fine up to Rs 10,000.

Registration will soon be required for persons in live-in relationships in Rajasthan too, going by a judgement of the Rajasthan High Court on January 29 that directed the state government to make it mandatory for couples in a live-in relationship to enter into an agreement.

If other Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled states adopt a uniform civil code that follows the Uttarakhand model, registering live-in relationships will become the reality for a large proportion of Indians.

However, this trend would go against the very reason people enter live-in relationships in the first place: to live together without state or community interference. This, after all, is what differentiates a live-in relationships from marriage.

Family law and women’s rights lawyers suggested that the current legal framework already provides the safeguards such regulation is ostensibly meant to provide – to protection of the rights of the female partner and children from the live-in relationship.

They warned that by making it more difficult to enter into live-in relationships, such regulation impinges on fundamental rights.

Couples don’t want regulation

Individuals in live-in relationships questioned the rationale for this move by the Uttarakhand government and the Rajasthan High Court. “Who is this law meant to protect and from whom?” asked Priyanshi. She said she would feel unsafe in her home town in Uttarakhand if she had to register her live-in relationship there due to the possibility her family would find out about it.

“The intention of the law is clear: it will push couples into marriage,” she added.

Shivangi Khattar, 32, a PhD scholar from Delhi, believed regulation is unnecessary since marriage already exists. She has been living with her fiancée since last year. “If a couple wants official recognition, they will marry,” she said.

Daksh*, 36, from Bengaluru, agreed. He has been in an interfaith live-in relationship for three years – he is Christian while his partner is Hindu. He asked how a live-in relationship would be different from a marriage if it needed to be registered. “People will either hide their relationships or forge live-in relationship registration or marriage documents,” he said.

He also feared that landlords might discriminate against such couples. “We had to lie to our landlord that we are married to get our house,” he said. “If we had to inform him that we are in a live-in relationship, he definitely wouldn’t have given us this house.”

Most people in live-in relationships said that such relationships are meant to explore compatibility. “If it becomes contractual, it takes away the freedom to experience the relationship as we want,” said Nishita Banerjee, 30, a media researcher who was until recently residing in Noida with her partner.

She asked how the state would recognise and regulate the fluidity of live-in relationships. “My partner was living with me the last four months but just shifted to Bangalore for work,” she said. “He may return or I may move to Bangalore to live with him.”

She wondered if they would have to register in both locations if their relationship were to be registered.

The Uttarakhand government has used the language of rights to defend its decision. “The only objective behind making registration mandatory in live-in relationship cases is the safety and protection of girls and women, the child born from live-in relationship will be considered as biological child and will be given full rights,” claimed the chief minister, Pushkar Singh Dhami.

However, experts point out that such rights already exist under Indian law. “Women are legally protected from domestic violence regardless of whether they are married or not,” said Bengaluru-based legal academic Sarasu Esther Thomas.

Added Nikita Sonavane, lawyer and co-founder of the Bhopal-based Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project, “Children born out of such relationships are protected by several personal laws and court judgements”.

The Supreme Court had held in 2010 that the right to live with a partner of one’s choice is part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 also extends to women in live-in relationships. Over the years, several Supreme Court judgements have accorded legitimacy and inheritance rights to children born in live-in relationships.

The Hindu Marriage Act also recognises children born out of marriage as legitimate and gives them the right to inheritance over their parents’ property.

Surveillance and harassment

Even as it does nothing for women and child rights, the new law makes it more difficult to enter into live-in relationships. “The entire purpose of a live-in relationship is that couples want something less formal and less regulated than marriage," said Delhi-based lawyer and women's rights researcher Mihira Sood. “The kind of requirements that the law in Uttarakhand has imposed on couples, making it more difficult to register a live-in relationship than getting married, shows that the government is not willing to understand what a live-in relationship is all about.”

Rather than further the scope of Constitutional rights, in fact, the regulation in Uttarakhand and the one proposed in Rajasthan is a direct violation of personal freedom. "These laws create obstacles to the fundamental right to live with anyone of one’s choice," said Delhi-based family and property lawyer Malavika Rajkotia.

Rajkotia feared that the law would legitimise harassment and strengthen vigilante groups. She gave the example of cousins or platonic friends who may want to rent a property together but may face suspicion of being a live-in couple from the landlord or the police. "This has the potential for mischief of devastating proportions," she warned.

Such laws are meant especially to carry out surveillance of and regulate interfaith couples, said Sonavane. “It is virtually impossible for interfaith couples to get married in BJP-ruled states under the Special Marriage Act because of pressure and opposition from right-wing vigilante groups during the 30-day notice period,” she said. “Now they’re trying to regulate interfaith and intercaste couples who may or may not have the intention to marry.”

She explained that local police routinely carry out surveillance of people they deem to be problematic in their jurisdiction. “Now one will see a routinised form of surveillance of especially interfaith couples, especially if the man is Muslim and the woman is Hindu,” she said.

On Wednesday, these fears were vindicated as Hindutva vigilante group Bajrang Dal claimed it had already accessed the data for live-in registrations in Uttarakhand.

Sood also criticised the requirement of Aadhaar for registration in Uttarakhand. "The Supreme Court has said that Aadhaar can only be demanded in limited circumstances," she pointed out.

Rajkotia called the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code’s live-in code a reflection of social prejudice. “This is all coming from some weird fear – an anxiety about how society is moving forward outside the traditional construct," she said. Rajkotia argued that the regulation is rooted in a "moral hyper-anxiety" and an attempt to control personal choices.

Such regulation is meant to disincentivise live-in relationships and force people to marry, said Thomas. “Registering a live-in relationship could be worse than getting married for women choosing partners against family or community norms,” she said. “Imagine what a girl’s parents would do to her if they found out that she’s in a live-in relationship due to the relationship being registered.”

In a country in which honour killings are routine, such laws are “very very dangerous to young people all over the country”, she said.

*Names have been changed to protect the individuals’ identity.