Registering Intimacy: Assessing the Constitutional Validity of Mandatory Live-In Registrations Under UCC Era

Author

Abhigyan Aryan is a 2nd-year student pursuing the 5-year LL.B. programme at Central University of South Bihar. LinkedIn

Introduction

In 2024, Uttarakhand became the first state after Independence to implement a Uniform Civil Code, and the majority of the public discussion has focused on issues related to marriage, divorce, and inheritance. Part 3 of the Code (Sections 378 to 389) mandates the registration of live-in relationships and imposes penalties, including imprisonment, for failing to register.[^1]

This is significant because for many years, Indian courts have recognized cohabitation among consenting adults as a matter of personal freedom under Article 21,[^2] rather than as behaviour for the State to regulate. Part 3 challenges that established perspective, and in March 2026, Gujarat’s Assembly enacted its own Code, which also addresses live-in relationships.[^3] Is it permissible for a State to require adults to formally document their private domestic arrangements with a Registrar under the threat of imprisonment?

This blog contends that it is not possible. Mandatory registration, particularly its criminal enforcement, violates both informational and decisional privacy, does not meet the necessity and balancing criteria of proportionality, and creates an inconsistency in Section 385 that regards adults like minors. The conclusion offers a voluntary alternative.

The Existing Position: Protection Without Paperwork

Judges, rather than lawmakers, have been instrumental in shaping this area. In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, the Supreme Court stated that cohabitation is not a crime, highlighting that morality and criminality do not necessarily align.[^4] Lata Singh v. State of U.P. reinforced the idea that adults have the autonomy to choose their partners,[^5] while Shakti Vahini v. Union of India urged the State to safeguard that choice instead of hindering it.[^6] Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma clarified the conditions under which a live-in relationship can be recognized as akin to marriage under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, without requiring prior registration.[^7] The consistent theme is that protection is based on the reality of the relationship, rather than its formal documentation.

Part 3 reverses this reasoning. Section 378 requires partners residing in the State, regardless of whether they are residents, to provide a statement to the Registrar, and Section 381 regulates that statement along with the inquiry by the Registrar. Subsequently, Section 387 imposes penalties: as reported, a maximum of three months’ imprisonment or a fine of 210,000 for failing to register within a month, which can increase to six months’ imprisonment or a 225,000 fine if a Registrar’s notice is disregarded.[^8] Cohabitation itself is still legal; only failure to disclose it is penalized. That differentiation is the State’s strongest argument.

Registration as an Intrusion on Privacy

Puttaswamy affirmed that privacy is a fundamental right encompassing informational self-determination and decisional autonomy, including the right to choose intimate relationships.[^9] The couple is required to reveal a relationship that was previously unrecorded by law, along with their residential address. This procedure also involves others: the Registrar confirms details with landlords, who are anticipated to obtain a registration certificate before renting premises to a live-in couple.[^10] Section 386 further permits third parties to report a relationship that infringes upon the Code, turning neighbours, landlords, and relatives into informal enforcers.[^11] Part 3 provides a legal framework for such private policing.

The government’s most effective response emerged during initial hearings at the Uttarakhand High Court, where the bench commented that the State was not banning live-in relationships but rather documenting them, and questioned what level of secrecy couples living openly could expect.[^12] Privacy, as defined in the Puttaswamy case, is not merely about concealment; it encompasses the ability to control what the State documents, retains, and may act upon. It is common knowledge within a neighbourhood that two individuals are living together; however, a state database that connects their identities, addresses, and relationship history is an entirely different matter: it can be accessed, shared, and potentially exploited.

The Proportionality Analysis

A limitation on Article 21 must fulfil four criteria: a legitimate purpose, a rational link to that purpose, necessity, which means there are no equally effective and less intrusive options available, and a proper balance[^13] between the benefits obtained and the impact on the right. The State argues that registration safeguards women against abandonment, confirms the status of children, and, as stated by the Chief Minister, could assist in preventing incidents like the Shraddha Walker murder. A rational connection can be debated for the specific evidentiary goal.

Necessity is the point at which Part 3 falls short. Measures against domestic violence are already based on the circumstances of a relationship as outlined in the 2005 Act.[^14] Children from lengthy cohabitation already experience a presumption of legitimacy established in Tulsa v. Durghatiya, and the Court has broadened property rights to offspring of void and voidable marriages in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun.[^15] If establishing the relationship is the main challenge, the least limiting solution is a voluntary registry whose certificate creates a presumption in maintenance and inheritance conflicts. Coercion contributes little, while incarceration adds nothing. A registry is unable to stop a murder.

Overall, individuals who are least able to register couples dealing with hostile family members and women who must swiftly flee a dangerous home are most affected. According to reports, there was just one registered live-in relationship during the first 10 days of operation, which raises the possibility that numerous couples could face criminal culpability without any protective measures.

The Age Paradox in Section 385

The Registrar is required under Section 385 to notify the guardians or parents of any partner under the age of twenty-one.[^17] According to the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act of 2006, a woman who is eighteen years old is an adult and can marry without parental approval.[^18] However, the State itself notifies her family if she chooses to live together. Given the honour-based violence Lata Singh and Shakti Vahini faced, it gives family members a means of meddling and might put the very women the Code purports to protect in jeopardy. Additionally, it treats cohabitation as riskier than marriage without any justification.

Unresolved Questions and the Research Gap

Some questions are still unanswered. Initially, the High Court challenges have yielded oral remarks but no reasoned ruling, meaning no court has yet examined Part 3 under the Puttaswamy proportionality standard. Secondly, discussions have focused on the Code’s approach to personal laws, while the aspect of data protection has been less explored: specifically, how registry records are maintained, shared with law enforcement, and aligned with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which may have exemptions for government entities that could impact it. These gaps are significant because Gujarat and other States are enacting laws prior to having the answers.

Counter-Arguments and the Way Forward

Supporters answer that the Code protects vulnerable partners, that the information is confidential and that the burden is light. These concerns are legitimate, but they justify incentives rather than compulsion. Three reforms follow.

First, registration should be voluntary, with the certificate carrying practical benefits in maintenance, succession and tenancy.

Second, Section 387’s penalties and Section 386’s third-party complaints should be deleted.

Third, any surviving registry must observe data minimisation and purpose limitation, and must not notify the families of adults, since Puttaswamy demands legality, a legitimate aim and proportionality for every State intrusion on privacy.[^20]

Courts need not dismantle the Code: under the doctrine of severability, a constitutional court may strike down the penal and third-party provisions while preserving maintenance and legitimacy protections. That would protect women without criminalising them.

Conclusion

Part 3 of the Uttarakhand Code confuses recognition with control. This blog has argued that compulsory registration infringes the right to self-determination, criminal punishments must be necessary and properly balanced under the principles of proportionality, and that Section 385 subjects adults to parental notification without a rational basis. My position is that a State may offer couples a registry and reward those who use it, but may not compel intimate disclosure on pain of imprisonment.

The way forward is voluntary registration linked to maintenance, succession and tenancy benefits, deletion of Sections 386 and 387, and firm data safeguards. Going forward, the High Court’s eventual ruling, empirical evidence on the registry’s effects and Gujarat’s implementation will decide whether this model spreads or is corrected.

Footnotes

[^1]: The Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand, 2024 (Uttarakhand Act No. 3 of 2024), Part 3, ss. 378, 381, 385, 386, 387.

[^2]: Constitution of India, art. 21.

[^3]: “Gujarat Assembly Passes Uniform Civil Code Bill After 7-Hour Debate”, News on AIR, 25 Mar. 2026.

[^4]: S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600.

[^5]: Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475.

[^6]: Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192.

[^7]: Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755.

[^8]: The Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand, 2024, Part 3.

[^9]: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

[^10]: The Uniform Civil Code Rules, Uttarakhand, 2025, rr. 6(4)(b)(iv), 6(4)(d), 6(4)(g), 6(4)(h), 6(4)(k), Home Section-05, Government of Uttarakhand.

[^11]: The Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand, 2024, s. 386.

[^12]: “UCC Challenge | ‘You Brazenly Live Together Sans Marriage, What Privacy Is Invaded? State Isn’t Saying No to Live-In’: Uttarakhand HC Orally Remarks”, Live Law, 17 Feb. 2025.

[^13]: Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of M.P., (2016) 7 SCC 353.

[^14]: Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act No. 43 of 2005), s. 2(f).

[^15]: Tulsa v. Durghatiya, (2008) 4 SCC 520; Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2023) 10 SCC 1.

[^16]: “Only One Live-in Relationship Registered in 10 Days After UCC Implementation in Uttarakhand”, Deccan Herald, 5 Feb. 2025.

[^17]: The Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand, 2024, s. 385.

[^18]: Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (Act No. 6 of 2007), s. 2(a).

[^19]: Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (Act No. 22 of 2023), s. 17.

[^20]: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

References

Statutes and Legislation

1. The Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand, 2024 (Uttarakhand Act No. 3 of 2024), Part 3, ss. 378, 381, 385, 386, 387.
2. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act No. 43 of 2005), s. 2(f).
3. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (Act No. 6 of 2007), s. 2(a).
4. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (Act No. 22 of 2023), s. 17.

Constitutional Provisions

5. Constitution of India, art. 21.

Judicial Decisions

6. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600.
7. Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475.
8. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755.
9. Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192.
10. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
11. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1.
12. Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of M.P., (2016) 7 SCC 353.
13. Tulsa v. Durghatiya, (2008) 4 SCC 520.
14. Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun, (2023) 10 SCC 1.

Rules and Regulations

15. The Uniform Civil Code Rules, Uttarakhand, 2025, rr. 6(4)(b)(iv), 6(4)(d), 6(4)(g), 6(4)(h), 6(4)(k), Home Section-05, Government of Uttarakhand.

Online Sources

16. “Uttarakhand UCC Highlights: Bill Proposes Registration of Live-In Relationships, Jail Term for Those Who Don’t”, Deccan Herald, 6 Feb. 2024.
17. “Only One Live-in Relationship Registered in 10 Days After UCC Implementation in Uttarakhand”, Deccan Herald, 5 Feb. 2025.
18. “UCC: Why This Live-In Couple Is Taking on Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code”, Scroll.in, 4 Mar. 2025.
19. “UCC Challenge | ‘You Brazenly Live Together Sans Marriage, What Privacy Is Invaded? State Isn’t Saying No to Live-In’: Uttarakhand HC Orally Remarks”, Live Law, 17 Feb. 2025.
20. “Gujarat Assembly Passes Uniform Civil Code Bill After 7-Hour Debate”, News on AIR, 25 Mar. 2026.