Couples in India face jail for living together

UNMARRIED Indian couples in the Himalayan state of Uttarakhand will be required to inform authorities if they live together or face being imprisoned.

A new l aw regulating so- called “live-in” relationships forms part of the state’s Uniform Civil Code (UCC), passed on Tuesday by local representatives of India’s ruling nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Rooted in the framework of the Indian Constitution, the UCC puts an end to religious interpretation of laws guiding marriage, divorce, inheritance and adoption, among other matters.

Since declaring independence in 1947, India has allowed Hindus, Muslims, Christians and other minority groups to follow their own laws and customs, or an optional secular code for marriage, divorce, adoption and inheritance. But the UCC, a years-old BJP pledge, seeks to end that, banning a host of Muslim practices including polygamy and setting minimum ages for men and women to marry.

The code, ushered in months before national elections, also prohibits relatives from marrying, grants equal inheritance rights to sons and daughters and, in a national first, will regulate “live-in” relationships.

Under the law, unmarried couples – defined by the bill as a man and a woman – must inform their local registrar if they are living together.

The official will then be required to conduct an inquiry to verify the relationship and ensure it complies with rules prohibiting minors or individuals already married from entering into a “live-in” relationship.

Police and parents will be informed if either partner is under the age of 21. Certificates will be i ssued to couples who pass the checks.

The provisions set out by the UCC were denounced by legal scholars, who argued they marked an unconstitutional step backwards in the world’s largest democracy, handing the state the power “to police romance”.

“This is a very absurd provision ... a clear violation of the right to privacy,” Prashant Bhushan, a supreme court l awyer, said. “In my view, this is totally unconstitutional.”