Advancing “gender equality”, protecting “women and children” and creating an “egalitarian society” are among the justifications the Uttarakhand government has offered in a court affidavit defending the state’s Uniform Civil Code.

The 140-point, 77-page-long document was filed in the Uttarakhand High Court on March 30 in response to five petitions challenging the Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand Act, 2024. The act, which came into force in January, replaced religion-based laws governing marriage, divorce and succession.

It also made it mandatory for live-in relationships to be registered. Those who fail to do so could face up to three months of imprisonment.

The petitions have alleged that the provisions of the act on live-in relationships violate the right to privacy, discriminate on the basis of gender and criminalise personal choices.

The state’s counter-affidavit has defended these provisions, saying that the right to privacy does not override “legitimate state interest” to regulate relationships that have social, legal and economic consequences. Its argument, however, is couched in a superficial language of women’s rights, even though the affidavit presents women solely as victims in need of protection.

Marriage = ‘marriage-like’

The affidavit reiterates that the difference between marriage and live-in relationships, even alluding that marriage is superior since it “occupies a distinct socio-legal position and live-in relationships can never be categorised as marriage itself”. But in practical terms, it equates them by offering the same justification for registration: maintenance rights to the woman, protection from domestic violence, and legitimacy to the child born to the couple.

“It is submitted that registration provides a formal mechanism to ascertain the existence of a live-in relationship, thus protecting the rights of women and prevent further exploitation,” the affidavit states.

The argument that giving live-in relationships the same treatment as marriage is somehow good for gender justice is flawed.

First, it creates an artificial difference between women, categorising them as deserving of rights and justice based on their marital or sexual status. Such a line of reasoning sets apart married women, and now women in live-in relationships, as entitled to protection from domestic violence and not, for instance, a woman with a boyfriend or male partner – this is even though women in all three varying situations are similarly vulnerable to physical violence.

The limited of extension of legal rights to women in live-in relationships also ignores the already existing concerns of marital rape, violence and abuse in the marital home. According to the fifth and latest round of the National Family Health Survey, 2019-’21, “nearly one-fifth of ever-married women age 18-49 in Uttarakhand have experienced physical or sexual violence” – the most common perpetrator was the husband.

The affidavit, similarly, perpetuates the legal blindspot surrounding marital rape – there is no mention of provisions that deal with rape or sexual violence within a live-in relationship.

This contradictory line of reasoning runs through several points. For instance, the affidavit highlights the abandonment of women in live-in relationships as a “longstanding matter of concern” but is silent on how bestowing the same rights on them as married women is an improvement – like in the case of “NRI brides”, whose husbands abandon them after marrying for dowry money to fund a life abroad.

The affidavit also betrays a selfish intent in registering marriages as crucial for ensuring the stability of the family unit, which it says “forms the very basis of the State”. Preserving marriage is certainly in the best interests of the state, which will benefit from the unpaid labour of care and reproduction that is primarily performed by women. This does not serve the purpose of gender justice.

Recognising live-in relationships within the narrow framework of “marriage-like”, similarly, stamps out any nuance to such relationships by imposing a simplistic template on them: it leaves no space to imagine relationships with unconventional dynamics or attachment between two people.

‘Women and children’, overreach

Equally problematic is the convenient combined category of “women and children” in whose defence the affidavit justifies several provisions. The affidavit insists on singling out live-in relationships for compulsory registration to account for situations where the “safety and rights of women and children are concerned”.

Not only does the affidavit infantilise women by clubbing them with children, it describes them as “vulnerable individuals”.This reinforces the idea that women are in constant need of protection while projecting the illusion of a seemingly benign, well-intentioned state-as-a-patriarch.

This protective intent is used to justify overreach.

In an instance of verbal acrobatics, the affidavit draws parallels between the Uniform Civil Code Act and the Motor Vehicle Act to defend criminal penalties, including a jail term, for not registering a live-in relationship. There is an admission that the intent is “not to impose harsh penalties” but to achieve deterrence, and, conveniently, ensure legal recognition which can address issues of maintenance and legitimacy of children.

The affidavit similarly deems the right to “choose a partner of their choice outside the traditional boundaries of marriage” a “special requirement” but one that cannot ignore the important faces of “parental concerns” and “surreptitious motives”.

The affidavit refutes concerns about “honour killings” due to the disclosure of private information as “wholly incorrect” – Scroll has reported from the ground in Uttarakhand of several instances where interfaith couples have faced attacks from vigilante groups for defying their families. Instead, the affidavit claims that registration would in fact ensure timely action, prevent violent incidents and “protect vulnerable couples”.

The imprint of the biased, communally-charged coverage that followed the murder of a young Hindu woman at the hands of her Muslim boyfriend, whom she was living with, is also evident in the state’s explanations. Quoting the state’s expert committee, the affidavit claims that “rising incidences of crimes emanating from live-in relationships, as highlighted by the media”, underlined the necessity of tracking live-in relationships.

The justifications offered by the Uttarakhand government show how a narrow idea of women’s rights becomes a convenient cover for more insidious aims.

Here is a summary of the week’s top stories.

International trade. China said it will fight United States President Donald Trump’s trade war “to the end” if Washington wants to engage in trade wars. A Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said that “pressure, threats and coercion” were not the right ways to deal with the country.

This came after Trump on Wednesday increased tariffs on China by 125%, while reducing the duties on imports from other countries to 10% for 90 days. Hours after the comments by Beijing, the White House increased the levies on China to 145%. Beijing retaliated by increasing its taxes on American goods to 125% a day later.

On Wednesday, the US president had cited the “lack of respect” Beijing had shown to the global markets for further increasing tariffs on imports from China. He claimed that 75 countries had sought trade negotiations with Washington and had not retaliated.

China’s yuan was at its weakest level against the US dollar on Thursday since the global financial crisis. Oil prices also fell by nearly 3% amid fears of a deepening trade war between the US and China.

Also read: Opinion: What India should do as it faces the Trump tsunami

Strengthening federalism. The Supreme Court ruled that Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi acted “illegally and erroneously” by withholding assent to 10 state bills, some pending since 2020, and later sending them to the president after they were re-passed by the Assembly.

A court said that Ravi violated Article 200 of the Constitution and “showed scant respect” for settled democratic conventions. The bench deemed the bills as assented to from the date of their re-enactment and quashed any presidential action taken on them.

Governors cannot deploy “pocket vetoes” and must act within fixed timelines, the court said. Chief Minister MK Stalin said the verdict was “historic” and upheld the rights of all Indian states. Most of the bills relate to state control over higher education, including limiting the governor’s role as chancellor of state universities.

Nachiket Deuskar explains governors have been exercising pocket vetoes – and undermining federalism.

Bengal’s teachers. The Supreme Court overturned a Calcutta High Court order directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to inquire into the West Bengal Cabinet’s move to create supernumerary posts for teacher appointments, saying courts cannot scrutinise Cabinet decisions.

However, the court had on April 3 upheld the cancellation of around 25,000 appointments made through the 2016 State Level Selection Test, saying that the recruitment process was “vitiated by manipulation and fraud”. A re-evaluation had shown candidates were hired against blank optical mark recognition sheets.

While the CBI probe into these irregularities will continue, the court set aside the agency’s inquiry into the creation of the posts. West Bengal’s school board has urged the court to let “untainted” teachers continue till the academic year ends. Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, addressing affected teachers, said she would stand by them but respected the court’s verdict.

India’s neighbourhood. New Delhi has withdrawn a four-year-old facility that allowed Bangladeshi export cargo to be transhipped through Indian land customs stations to third countries. The decision, announced by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs on Tuesday, follows complaints about reduced cargo space, congestion and rising air freight costs from Indian exporters.

Industry bodies like the Apparel Export Promotion Council had lobbied for the move. The suspension could disrupt Bangladeshi logistics and may raise questions over India’s World Trade Organization obligations, which require smooth transit for landlocked countries.

The development also comes amid diplomatic tensions, triggered by Bangladeshi leader Muhammad Yunus’ comments in China about Dhaka being the “only guardian of the ocean” for India’s landlocked North East states, a claim that drew sharp political backlash in Delhi.

Also on Scroll this week

Follow the Scroll channel on WhatsApp for a curated selection of the news that matters throughout the day, and a round-up of major developments in India and around the world every evening. What you won’t get: spam.

And, if you haven’t already, sign up for our Daily Brief newsletter.