On UCC, High Court asks if Uttarakhand can invite suggestions afresh, consider changes

Arguing for the PIL, Grover said that the UCC act, rules, and forms set up a legal regime, intruding into the personal sphere with surveillance and policing. “Every information… is immediately sent to the local police station. In this country, why should my information be with the local police?” she said. The court said that domiciliary visits by the police are held to be violative. “No policeman can knock at the door. Is that power given to the police (under UCC)?… Whether the UCC empowers the police to visit you?” the court said.

Grover said that the police can take appropriate action, and “appropriate action is not defined” under the Act. “Any person can go and file a complaint that this person is living without registration… It asks women if they are terminating a live-in relationship and to inform if they are pregnant. I understand the purpose – it is for the legitimacy of the child. This information is private and cannot go into the hands of public authorities and police. We are going to create a situation where women will be worse off. They will be subjected to social humiliation every day,” she said.

To this, the Bench asked what her suggestions were. “Were your suggestions invited while the law was being drafted? Mr SG, can you invite suggestions afresh? You can consider wherever changes are needed, and can we incorporate it? You can impress upon the state legislature to bring about necessary (changes),” it said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said he could not make a statement, but said he would examine it. “But suggestions were invited, and it was only after the consultation process. Each provision has some objective in mind. By and large, the objective is to ensure the protection of a woman who is generally the vulnerable partner,” he said.

Grover also sought that the Solicitor General ensure no coercive action against the couple she represented. The court asked the state to file a counter on April 1.

She said, “My lords have been hearing since morning that there were at least three-four petitions of couples seeking protection because they married out of choice. What this (UCC) is going to do is even for registration of a regular marriage, I will have to make a statement, and there are circumstances in which prior to registration, the statement will go to my parents. If it is a live-in, it will go to the police. The police will be informed of personal decisions. While it is being presented in the name of women that they will get rights and violence against women will be diminished, it is going to create a situation where there will be familial intimidation and social coercion. We are in a society where you also have honour-based crimes.”

The bench asked what the problem was in registration. “For the larger good, you have to compromise on some rights. More often than not, it is the woman partner who would be vulnerable… The child born out of that will not be treated as a bastard, he will get a share in the family,” the court said.

It further observed, “Traditionally, marriage has been an institution. Men and women living without there being a marriage is generally deprecated. Gradually, those values are changing. What is wrong if the law tries to keep pace with the changing society… now, social institutions are being disintegrated… This relation gives birth to a child as well. It is not just these two individuals.” Grover said that the Supreme Court has given judgments and section 379 of the UCC gives legitimacy to a child born out of wedlock.

Grover contended that the UCC mandates registration through Aadhaar and is violative of the K S Puttaswamy judgment. “To register on the portal, the first thing I have to do is to link my mobile with my Aadhaar. The law states that I need not. How can you, in the teeth of Puttawamy judgment, say link your mobile with Aadhaar?” she asked.