CHD October 23
Proposed State laws aimed at protecting vulnerable partners face questions over privacy, equality and the threat of imprisonment
Compulsory registration of live-in relationships under state Uniform Civil Codes (UCCs) has sparked a debate over the balance between protecting vulnerable partners and safeguarding individual privacy and personal freedom. While the laws seek to address issues such as maintenance, children’s rights and the prevention of fraudulent relationships, their enforcement mechanisms raise significant constitutional concerns under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code, introduced in 2024, made registration of live-in relationships mandatory, requiring partners to inform a Registrar within a month. Failure to comply can attract penalties, including imprisonment. Gujarat has also enacted a similar law, receiving presidential assent on September 17, 2026, and being gazetted on October 1. However, its commencement date has not yet been announced. Assam has also introduced a similar proposal.
The shift towards compulsory registration marks a departure from the earlier legal approach, under which the State generally intervened when disputes arose between partners. The Supreme Court, in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, held that two consenting adults living together do not commit an offence merely by cohabiting.
Supporters of compulsory registration argue that it could help protect women abandoned by their partners, safeguard the rights of children born from such relationships and establish whether either partner is already married. These are legitimate concerns, particularly where economically dependent partners are left without financial support.
However, critics argue that criminalising non-registration is disproportionate. Unlike the failure to register a marriage, which generally attracts a fine, non-registration of a live-in relationship can lead to imprisonment under the relevant provisions. This raises questions about equality before the law under Article 14.
The sharing of registration details with local police stations also raises concerns about privacy and potential misuse of personal information. Under the Supreme Court’s landmark K.S. Puttaswamy judgment, the right to privacy is protected under Article 21, subject to constitutionally valid restrictions.
Another contentious provision involves notifying the parents of partners aged 18 to 21. Critics argue that this may conflict with judicial precedents recognising the autonomy of adults to choose their partners. The restriction of maintenance-related protections to women has also prompted questions about equality under Articles 14 and 15, particularly concerning vulnerable men, transgender persons and same-sex couples.
Legal experts argue that the objectives of these laws can be achieved through less restrictive measures. Suggested reforms include replacing imprisonment with proportionate civil penalties, restricting police access to registration records through clear safeguards, ensuring fair procedures for decisions by Registrars and extending appropriate protections to all vulnerable partners.
They also recommend that children’s rights and maintenance claims should not depend solely on whether a relationship has been registered.
In several other countries, registration of cohabiting relationships is generally voluntary, with couples encouraged to register through legal and financial benefits rather than criminal penalties.
The central question, therefore, is whether the State can protect vulnerable partners without unnecessarily intruding into private relationships. With Gujarat’s law yet to come into force, there remains an opportunity to address these concerns and establish a framework that balances social protection with constitutional freedoms.
Note: Details concerning the 2026 enactments are based on press reports and should be verified against the relevant gazetted legislation before publication. No enforcement data is currently available.
