When Love Needs Govt Permission: Are India’s live-in registration laws crossing a constitutional line?….by Babli Khetwal

Compulsory registration of live-in relationships may promise protection for women and children, but the threat of imprisonment, police access and parental notification raises serious questions about privacy, equality and personal liberty.

Can the State protect people in live-in relationships without requiring them to register their private lives? And should two consenting adults face the threat of imprisonment simply because they failed to notify a government official that they are living together?

These questions are becoming increasingly important as Indian states move towards compulsory registration of live-in relationships under their respective Uniform Civil Code frameworks.

The stated objectives are not without merit. Women abandoned by their partners can face financial insecurity, children may encounter social stigma, and the absence of documentation can complicate legal claims. But the method chosen to address these problems matters just as much as the problems themselves.

When registration becomes compulsory, police are given access to personal information, and non-compliance can attract criminal penalties, a policy intended to protect vulnerable people risks becoming a system of surveillance and control.

The constitutional question is simple but consequential: Can the State make private relationships declare themselves before the law, or does that requirement cross the boundaries of personal liberty?

From legal protection to compulsory disclosure

For years, Indian law generally refrained from criminalising the decision of consenting adults to live together outside marriage.

In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), the Supreme Court made it clear that living together without marriage is not, by itself, a criminal offence. The Court also recognised that social disapproval cannot determine the limits of constitutionally protected personal liberty.

The legal system developed mechanisms to address the consequences of such relationships without routinely requiring couples to register them in advance. Courts have recognised that long-term cohabitation can give rise to a presumption of marriage in appropriate circumstances. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, also extends certain protections to relationships “in the nature of marriage”.

These safeguards were designed to address vulnerability, abandonment and abuse. They did not establish a general requirement that every couple disclose its relationship to the State.

That approach is now changing.

Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code, which came into force in January 2025, introduced compulsory registration requirements for live-in relationships, including a prescribed period for submitting a statement to the Registrar. Gujarat has also enacted legislation incorporating similar requirements. Assam has considered a comparable legislative approach.

The details differ, and the legal status and commencement of each measure must be distinguished carefully. Nevertheless, the emerging model raises a common concern: whether the State should require adults to disclose their intimate relationships as a condition of legal compliance.

What is the law trying to achieve?

A fair assessment must begin by acknowledging why lawmakers may consider registration necessary.

Women in informal relationships can face serious financial hardship when partners abandon them. Establishing the nature and duration of a relationship may help resolve disputes over maintenance and other legal entitlements. Children born to unmarried parents should not suffer discrimination because of their parents’ relationship status.

Registration may also help establish relevant facts where questions arise about an existing marriage or a prohibited relationship.

These are legitimate concerns. The State has a responsibility to protect people from exploitation and to ensure that children and economically dependent partners are not left without remedies.

But a legitimate objective does not automatically justify every measure adopted in its name.

The real issue is whether compulsory disclosure, police notification and criminal punishment are necessary to deliver these protections — or whether less intrusive alternatives could achieve the same results.

When missing a deadline can mean prison

One of the most troubling aspects of compulsory registration is the use of criminal penalties for non-compliance.

Under the Uttarakhand framework, failure to comply with specified registration requirements can attract imprisonment of up to three months, a fine, or both. The precise provisions and penalties under other state enactments must be examined separately rather than assumed to be identical.

The distinction between marriage registration and live-in relationship registration is important. Marriage is a legally recognised institution that creates a defined set of rights and obligations. A live-in relationship, by contrast, may be entered into informally by consenting adults without an intention to marry.

That difference does not mean the State can never regulate cohabitation. It does, however, demand a convincing justification for imposing criminal liability on people who fail to report it.

Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. A penal provision must have a rational basis and must not impose arbitrary or disproportionate burdens.

If the purpose of registration is to help establish maintenance claims or protect children, imprisonment for missing a notification deadline appears difficult to justify without demonstrating why civil measures would be inadequate.

A modest civil penalty, or a system that encourages registration by offering clear legal benefits, could be less restrictive alternatives.

Protecting vulnerable partners should not require turning an administrative omission into a criminal offence unless the necessity and proportionality of that punishment can be convincingly established.

Privacy does not end at the doorstep

The second concern is the collection and sharing of intimate personal information.

A compulsory registration system may require partners to disclose their identities, relationship details, addresses and other information to public authorities. Where registration records are transmitted to local police stations, questions arise about who can access those records, why they can access them, how long the information is retained and what safeguards prevent misuse.

These are not merely administrative questions. They go to the heart of the constitutional right to privacy.

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, read with other constitutional guarantees.

Restrictions affecting privacy must satisfy constitutional requirements, including legality, a legitimate state aim and proportionality. The precise application of this test depends on the statutory provisions and the circumstances in which information is collected or used.

Preventing exploitation and facilitating legal remedies may constitute legitimate objectives. But the existence of a legitimate objective does not settle whether every detail of a registration system is necessary.

Could the State keep records confidential? Could access be restricted to specific statutory purposes? Could sensitive information be disclosed to police only when a defined legal need arises? Could records be deleted after a specified period?

Without clear answers to such questions, compulsory registration risks creating a database of intimate relationships without sufficiently defined limits on its use.

The danger is not limited to official misuse. In some cases, disclosure of a relationship can expose adults to harassment, threats or coercion from hostile family members and other individuals who disapprove of their choices.

A policy designed to protect people should not inadvertently make them easier to locate, intimidate or control.

Should the State inform parents about adult relationships?

Parental notification raises another constitutional concern, particularly where the partners are young adults.

Under the Uttarakhand framework, special provisions apply to certain younger partners, including requirements concerning parental or guardian notification for those aged 18 to 21, subject to the precise statutory conditions.

The issue is not whether families can provide support. Many do. The question is whether the State should automatically involve parents in the private decisions of adults who have reached the legal age of majority.

In Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006), the Supreme Court affirmed the freedom of adults to marry a person of their choice and condemned harassment directed at couples exercising that freedom.

In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018), the Court emphasised individual autonomy in matters of intimate choice, holding that decisions concerning marriage and personal relationships lie within the sphere of individual liberty.

These judgments do not automatically invalidate every parental-notification provision relating to live-in relationships. The statutory context and the precise nature of the disclosure requirement matter.

Nevertheless, they establish an important constitutional principle: family disapproval does not, by itself, extinguish an adult’s autonomy.

Where notification could expose a person to violence, coercion or forced separation, lawmakers must explain why such disclosure is necessary and what safeguards are available to those at risk.

Protection should mean enabling adults to seek help when they need it — not assuming that parental involvement is always safe or appropriate.

Equality under Articles 14 and 15: Who receives protection?

A further concern arises when legal remedies are available only to certain categories of partners.

If maintenance protections are framed exclusively around women in particular types of relationships, the question is whether the distinction is constitutionally justified and whether other vulnerable partners are left without comparable remedies.

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, while Article 15 prohibits discrimination on specified grounds, including sex. These provisions do not prohibit every gender-specific protective measure. Laws designed to address established disadvantages may be constitutionally justified.

The concern arises when exclusions are broader than necessary or when similarly vulnerable people are denied meaningful legal protection without adequate justification.

Men who experience financial dependence or abuse, transgender persons and people in same-sex relationships may also face abandonment, economic exploitation and difficulties establishing their rights. Their circumstances deserve consideration in any modern framework governing intimate relationships.

This does not mean that the distinct disadvantages experienced by women should be ignored. Rather, a sound legal system should protect women against structural inequalities while examining whether other vulnerable people also require remedies.

Equality should inform the design of protection, not become an afterthought.

Is the Registrar becoming a gatekeeper to private life?

Compulsory registration also raises questions about administrative discretion.

When a Registrar has the authority to scrutinise a relationship, request information or determine whether statutory requirements have been met, procedural safeguards become essential.

People should know what information they must provide, what criteria the authority will apply, what happens if there is a dispute and how an adverse decision can be challenged.

Notice, a meaningful opportunity to respond, written reasons and a prompt appeal are basic protections against arbitrary decision-making.

Without transparent procedures, the registration system could create uncertainty for couples whose circumstances do not fit neatly into prescribed categories.

The process must also account for people who cannot safely disclose their relationship, those who lack access to documentation and those who may be dependent on a partner who controls their movements or finances.

A system that imposes obligations without providing accessible procedures and effective safeguards may end up burdening the very people it claims to protect.

The constitutional questions states must answer

The debate ultimately raises three interconnected questions.

First, does compulsory registration respect personal liberty under Article 21?

The answer requires an examination of the legal basis for collecting intimate information, the legitimacy of the objectives pursued and whether the burdens imposed are proportionate to those objectives.

Second, are the penalties and distinctions consistent with Articles 14 and 15?

Criminal punishment for non-compliance, as well as differences in the treatment of partners, must have a defensible legal basis. The existence of a protective purpose does not remove the need for constitutional scrutiny.

Third, are the laws supported by adequate procedural and privacy safeguards?

Clear limits on police access, confidentiality protections, reasonable retention periods, fair hearings and effective appeals can make a significant difference to whether a registration system operates lawfully and fairly.

There is also a broader question about legislative competence and territorial reach. Because marriage, family relations and related matters can involve overlapping constitutional and statutory considerations, the validity of particular provisions must be assessed against the relevant legislative entries and the text of each enactment. It would be premature to treat every state-level requirement as constitutionally identical.

These questions call for careful legal examination, not assumptions that every form of regulation is invalid or that every protective measure is justified.

What can India learn from other countries?

International approaches offer useful comparisons, although legal systems differ in their treatment of cohabitation, property, inheritance and family obligations.

Some jurisdictions provide voluntary mechanisms through which cohabiting couples can formalise aspects of their relationship or obtain defined legal benefits. Other systems recognise certain rights arising from the duration or circumstances of cohabitation without requiring universal advance registration.

These approaches suggest that legal recognition need not always depend on compulsory disclosure backed by criminal punishment.

India could consider a framework in which registration is encouraged through practical benefits, accessible legal documentation and clear rules governing maintenance and property disputes.

Such a system would still need safeguards against fraud, coercion and competing legal claims. But it could protect vulnerable partners without treating every unregistered relationship as a potential offence.

Four reforms that could make the system fairer

A more proportionate framework could begin with four changes.

1. Replace imprisonment for administrative non-compliance with proportionate civil measures.

Where the objective is simply to secure a record, criminal punishment should not be the default response to a missed deadline. Any penalty should be justified by the actual harm caused and the availability of less restrictive alternatives.

2. Protect children and vulnerable partners independently of registration.

A child’s legal rights should not depend on whether the parents completed a registration procedure. Similarly, access to maintenance and other remedies should not be defeated solely because a partner failed to comply with a notification requirement.

3. Restrict police access and protect confidential information.

Legislation should define the purposes for which records may be accessed, identify authorised officials, prescribe retention periods and establish accountability for misuse. Disclosure should be governed by clear legal standards and appropriate safeguards.

4. Strengthen autonomy, equality and procedural fairness.

Adults should not face unnecessary disclosure to family members. Registrars should follow transparent procedures, provide written reasons and permit timely appeals. Lawmakers should also examine whether the framework adequately protects all vulnerable partners while retaining measures specifically justified by women’s unequal social and economic position.

These reforms would not eliminate the State’s role. They would help ensure that its role remains focused on protection rather than unnecessary control.

The bottom line: Protection should not come at the cost of freedom

The State has a legitimate responsibility to protect people who face abandonment, abuse or financial insecurity in live-in relationships. It must also ensure that children are not disadvantaged by their parents’ marital status.

But those responsibilities do not automatically justify compulsory disclosure of intimate relationships, unrestricted access to personal records or imprisonment for failing to register.

The constitutional challenge is to balance protection with autonomy, equality and privacy.

India does not have to choose between leaving vulnerable partners without remedies and subjecting every couple to compulsory registration. It can strengthen maintenance rights, protect children, improve access to legal assistance and create reliable procedures for resolving disputes without criminalising administrative non-compliance.

A relationship should not need advance government recognition before a vulnerable person can seek justice. Registration should open the door to legal protection — not become a checkpoint at which personal liberty is put on trial.

October 23, 2026