Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
ABSTRACT The trend of states actively policing intimate arrangements does not remain unseen in the context of illiberal democracies. The prioritization of societal morality has continuously been a consideration within the conservative fold, whether it is in the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples or active state intrusion into the intimacies of interpersonal relationships. The passage of the Uniform Civil Code (“UCC”) Bill in the State of Uttarakhand in India forms a segment of this concerning trend. Being a part of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (“BJP”) lofty aspirations, the UCC brings about a peculiar requirement. Couples in live-in relationships are now required to undergo a ‘mandatory’ registration procedure. As the implementation of a nationwide UCC becomes more imminent, the mandatory registration of live-in relationships raises important constitutional questions regarding the extent of state interference in private decision-making. Indian jurisprudence around the concept of ‘decisional autonomy’ peaked in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. (“Puttaswamy”) But in the backdrop of the newly reconceptualized ‘Right to Intimate Association’ in Supriyo@Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (“Supriyo”), the Registration of live-in relationships is yet another peculiar constitutional conundrum to be explored.
Akshay Sriram (Thu,) studied this question.