In an interview focused entirely on the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code’s treatment of live-in relationships, one of the most highly regarded former judges of the Supreme Court has said: “It’s a bad law, it’s arbitrary, it has a lot of gaps in it which can be misused”. Justice Madan Lokur says that at least four or five of the UCC’s stipulations regarding live-in relationships will cause “huge harassment of innocent people”.In a 30-minute interview to Karan Thapar for The Wire, Justice Madan Lokur began by questioning the purpose of bringing live-in relationships under the Uniform Civil Code. “Frankly, I do not know why live-in relationships have been brought into the UCC. What’s the purpose?” He asked: “If two people are together in a relationship how does it cause any problem to anybody?” He added: “Why are you legislating on this? Why bring in the executive?”Justice Lokur identified several instances when the UCC will lead to harassment of innocent people.In the interview, Justice Lokur said the requirement to register a live-in relationship within one month is simply harassment. He said “jail is too much if you don’t register”.A second instance of harassment is the clause which says the Registrar can deny permission for a live-in relationship. Justice Lokur called it “very strange”. He said: “what kind of enquiry will the Registrar conduct?” For instance, he asked, how will the Registrar establish that the two people are not previously married? He also pointed out that there is no provision for appeal if permission is denied.A third instance of harassment will arise because the Registrar has a duty to inform the local police station. Justice Lokur said “what have they (the police) got to do with it?”Yet another instance of harassment will be the requirement that if any of the partners is under the age of 21 their parents must be informed. Justice Lokur asked: “Why is the permission of parents needed (if both are over the age of 18 and adults)?” In India, an individual over 18 is an adult and does not need parental permission for what he or she chooses to do.Perhaps the most egregious opportunity for harassment arises out of Section 386 which allows any third party to submit a complaint that a live-in relationship has not been registered. Justice Lokur agreed this would lead to moral policing and reprehensible vigilantism.Summing up the different instances of potential harassment that would arise out of the UCC’s treatment of live-in relationships, Justice Lokur said: “it can become an instrument of harassment”.Justice Lokur did not accept the explanation given by unnamed officials to the Indian Express that registration of live-in relationships is necessary because of “heinous crime among live-in couples”. He said: “I don’t accept this … there is no data for it.”In a substantial section of the interview, Justice Lokur made clear that the UCC flagrantly breaches the 2017 Puttaswamy case judgement declaring privacy to be a fundamental right. Justice Lokur identified several areas where the law on privacy is breached. These include the need for registration, informing the police, parental permission, the need for enquiry and the fact that neighbours have to be satisfied. As a result, Justice Lokur asked: “Where is the privacy?”Finally, Justice Lokur said he has no doubt that if challenged the entire section of the Uttarakhand UCC on live-in relationships would be scrapped. He said it violates both Articles 21 and 14 of the constitution.
