Editorial 1 : Policing, Not Protection
Context: Uttarakhand is regulating live-in relationships. But it doesn’t even understand them.
Introduction: The question of a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is extremely fraught in India. Non-marital relationships have never been debated within its purview. However, the Uttarakhand UCC’s emphasis on live-in relationships and its regulations has brought forth many debates ranging from legal to social.
The Debate over the Uniform Civil Code (UCC)
- Contentious Issue in India
- The UCC is a highly debated topic, with varied interpretations and implications across different states.
- Traditionally, UCC discussions have centred on marital relationships rather than non-marital or live-in relationships.
- Emergence of Live-In Relationships
- Non-marital cohabitation has historically been underexplored in legal debates.
- Recent debates have intensified due to specific cases (e.g. 2022 Shraddha Walker case) and media portrayal.
Legal and Social Evolution
- Empirical Evidence and Media Influence
- Limited empirical studies exist; much of the understanding is anecdotal and derived from high-profile cases.
- Media and popular culture play significant roles in shaping public opinion on live-in relationships.
- Judicial and Policy Engagement
- Since the early 21st century, the judiciary, policymakers, feminists, and legal scholars have debated the status and rights of those in live-in relationships.
- The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005) broadened the conversation by including relations in the nature of marriage.
Diverse Forms of Cohabitation
- Multiple Relationship Models
- Trial Marriages: Cohabitation as a test before entering into a formal marriage.
- Alternative Unions: Live-in relationships as a distinct alternative to conventional marriage.
- Secondary or Later-Life Relationships: Cohabitation involving divorced or widowed individuals.
- Cultural and Traditional Practices
- In many parts of India, certain forms of non-marital relationships have historical and customary acceptance.
- Some arrangements include scenarios where one or both partners are already married, adding to the complexity.
Legal Implications of Varied Relationship Forms
- Protection vs. Regulation
- The initial legal impetus was to protect women in secondary unions, particularly those in relationships with married men.
- Legal protections have been extended in limited forms (e.g. through the Malimath Committee’s recommendations).
- Judicial Interpretations
- Landmark cases (Velusamy vs D Patchaiammal, Indra Sarma vs VK Sharma) reflect a trend toward a restricted legal definition of relationships in the nature of marriage.
- Such interpretations have narrowed the scope of protection offered to live-in partners.
Critique of the Uttarakhand UCC Approach
- Regulatory Mechanisms and Their Implications
- Mandatory Registration
- The UCC mandates the registration of live-in relationships, effectively formalizing them.
- This requirement imposes the structure and obligations similar to conventional marriages.
- Restrictions and Coercive Potential
- Imposing strict regulations risks transforming a flexible arrangement into a rigid, legally bound union.
- There is concern that these regulations may lead to moral policing rather than genuine protection.
- Counterintuitive Legal Approval
- Undermining the Experimental Nature
- The intent of live-in relationships for many is to explore compatibility without the full legal trappings of marriage.
- The UCC’s approach could stifle this experimental freedom by aligning live-in relationships too closely with conventional marital norms.
- Unintended Consequences
- Poor drafting of the law may lead to ambiguous rights and obligations.
- Individuals in non-traditional or less recognized relationships (e.g. same-sex or relationships with already married individuals) remain unprotected.
Way Forward and Conclusion
- Going forward certain questions need to be answered. Do those in such relations need to be legally regulated? Should the law offer some kind of protection to those in such relationships or should it monitor and police them? What kind of rights and obligations should be attached to those in a non-marital relationship? What about those who continue to remain outside the purview of such a law such as those in same-sex relations or those who are in a relationship with an already married person?
While answers to such questions are not easy, they do not seem to have been considered at all in the UCC’s maiden attempt to codify relationships that are not necessarily in need of such regulatory attempts.
Editorial 2 : Hit Refresh
Context: New CEC is taking office in a challenging hour. He must engage with all stakeholders.
Background: Controversial Appointment
- Allegations of Disrespect
- Leader of Opposition, Rahul Gandhi criticized the midnight decision as disrespectful and discourteous.
- Appointment process challenged legally, with claims of procedural impropriety.
- Legal Context
- Government followed a law enacted post-Supreme Court intervention.
- Controversy pending judicial resolution.
Political and Institutional Challenges
- Polarized Political Landscape
- Government vs. Opposition Dynamics
- BJP enters third term with reduced majority but continued electoral momentum.
- Opposition gains foothold but struggles to consolidate strategy.
- EC’s Role: Must navigate heightened tensions and ensure perceived neutrality.
- Institutional Erosion of Trust
- Historical Context: TN Seshan (1990s) revitalized EC’s constitutional mandate, but effectiveness has fluctuated since.
- Recent Criticisms
- Opposition questions EVM reliability, delays in publishing turnout data, and electoral roll discrepancies.
- Allegations often lack evidence but reflect broader distrust.
- Outgoing CEC Rajiv Kumar’s Concerns: EC is unfairly blamed for electoral losses and spread of rumours undermines credibility.
Recent Controversies
- Model Code of Conduct (MCC) Violations (2019): Accusations of double standards in handling MCC breaches.
- Dubious Precedent: EC issued notices to party presidents for leaders’ remarks during Rajiv Kumar’s tenure, raising questions about procedural fairness.
Way Forward
- The EC needs to address apprehensions about its conduct in an open and transparent manner.
- It must engage with all players and stakeholders.
- it cannot appear either evasive or combative vis-a-vis the Opposition’s concerns.
- The new CEC could begin by opening the doors of his institution to all those who might have a question and draft his responses in a tone that echoes the impartial voice of a constitutional authority, not that of an angry outburst by a party spokesperson.
Conclusion: CEC Gyanesh Kumar inherits a complex mandate: managing a politically charged environment while restoring public trust in the EC. The success of his tenure will depend on his ability to navigate the dual challenges of political polarisation and institutional criticism.