1 00:00:01,040 --> 00:00:04,680 From Indias largest newsroom, I'm Arun George and this is the 2 00:00:04,680 --> 00:00:24,200 Times of India podcast live in relationship. 3 00:00:34,080 --> 00:00:36,280 That's Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami 4 00:00:36,280 --> 00:00:38,880 speaking after the Uttarakhand Assembly passed the Uniform 5 00:00:38,880 --> 00:00:42,000 Civil Code in the state on Wednesday, the 7th of February, 6 00:00:42,400 --> 00:00:45,160 the law was cleared by the state assembly nearly two years after 7 00:00:45,160 --> 00:00:47,960 a committee was created to suggest the drafting of the law. 8 00:00:48,640 --> 00:00:51,800 The law passed by Uttarakhand bans practices like polygamy and 9 00:00:51,800 --> 00:00:54,200 bigamy. It sets a minimum marriage age 10 00:00:54,200 --> 00:00:56,560 of 18 years for women and 21 years for men. 11 00:00:56,920 --> 00:00:59,440 It stipulates norms for the inheritance of property in the 12 00:00:59,440 --> 00:01:02,080 event of a will being written and when one isn't. 13 00:01:02,520 --> 00:01:06,120 The law also bans practices like nika halala and iddat, which are 14 00:01:06,120 --> 00:01:08,600 practiced in some pockets of the Muslim community. 15 00:01:09,160 --> 00:01:11,680 There has been opposition to some of the provisions, with 16 00:01:11,680 --> 00:01:14,480 critics saying the government shouldn't be overriding Muslim 17 00:01:14,480 --> 00:01:17,480 personal law, which presently decides things like marriage, 18 00:01:17,480 --> 00:01:20,440 divorce and inheritance. The law also controversially 19 00:01:20,440 --> 00:01:23,240 requires the registration of live in relationships, the first 20 00:01:23,240 --> 00:01:26,680 such law in the country. But most importantly, the law is 21 00:01:26,680 --> 00:01:29,840 seen as a precursor to other states passing similar laws and 22 00:01:29,840 --> 00:01:32,280 possibly even the national government passing such a law. 23 00:01:32,760 --> 00:01:35,800 The Uniform Civil Code has been a long standing demand of the 24 00:01:35,800 --> 00:01:39,960 BJP, but for now we're analyzing the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil 25 00:01:39,960 --> 00:01:42,400 Code. For that, my colleague Jairaj 26 00:01:42,400 --> 00:01:44,120 Singh and I spoke with Mihira Sood. 27 00:01:44,640 --> 00:01:47,800 Mihira Sood is the Executive Director of the Center for Child 28 00:01:47,800 --> 00:01:50,760 Rights and Juvenile Justice and a visiting Professor of Law at 29 00:01:50,760 --> 00:01:52,720 the National Law University in Delhi. 30 00:01:53,160 --> 00:01:55,800 She's also a columnist for The Times of India on legal issues 31 00:01:56,000 --> 00:01:57,360 and wrote a column on this issue. 32 00:01:58,000 --> 00:02:00,280 We've really split today's episode into two parts. 33 00:02:00,440 --> 00:02:02,840 In the first part, we're discussing the broader civil law 34 00:02:02,840 --> 00:02:06,240 changes being proposed by the state's Uniform Civil Code and 35 00:02:06,240 --> 00:02:09,600 how much it changes things. In the second part, we discuss 36 00:02:09,600 --> 00:02:12,880 why the laws handling of live in relationships is so problematic, 37 00:02:13,120 --> 00:02:17,400 despite it claiming otherwise. We started by asking Mihira Soon 38 00:02:17,600 --> 00:02:20,400 about the need to consider having a Uniform Civil Code. 39 00:02:23,000 --> 00:02:26,440 The promise of a Uniform Civil Code has been around for a 40 00:02:26,440 --> 00:02:28,360 while. We've been debating this for 41 00:02:28,360 --> 00:02:31,000 years now. While most of us have a rather 42 00:02:31,000 --> 00:02:34,000 easy understanding of, you know, why it's even a demand. 43 00:02:34,360 --> 00:02:37,160 Could you talk about what benefits come from having a 44 00:02:37,160 --> 00:02:41,080 uniform Civil Code compared to the existing system as it is? 45 00:02:42,320 --> 00:02:46,280 So I think here it's important to understand that different 46 00:02:46,280 --> 00:02:49,680 sections even of supporters of the Uniform Civil Code, they 47 00:02:49,680 --> 00:02:51,400 have their own reasons for this demand. 48 00:02:52,080 --> 00:02:54,760 Different people who support the idea may not agree with each 49 00:02:54,760 --> 00:02:58,800 other on their reasons. Traditionally, from the Hindu 50 00:02:58,800 --> 00:03:02,640 right, the demand has been things like why should Muslims 51 00:03:02,640 --> 00:03:05,560 have the right to polygamy and the right to multiple wives when 52 00:03:05,800 --> 00:03:07,360 Hindu men do not have this right. 53 00:03:07,360 --> 00:03:13,160 And and you know, sort of pitting it as a rivalry between 54 00:03:13,240 --> 00:03:16,320 Hindu and Muslim men. Several other sections of 55 00:03:16,320 --> 00:03:19,160 society have had this demand purely on grounds of gender 56 00:03:19,160 --> 00:03:24,160 equality, while Hindu law did take its time to to sort of 57 00:03:24,160 --> 00:03:29,120 effectively modernize. The first stage came in 1956 and 58 00:03:29,120 --> 00:03:33,280 the 2nd effectively in the early 2000s, where daughters were 59 00:03:33,280 --> 00:03:36,800 finally allowed to inherit ancestral property in the same 60 00:03:36,800 --> 00:03:39,520 way as sons. But the fact of the matter is 61 00:03:39,520 --> 00:03:42,640 that in many ways, whether it is a minimum marriageable age for 62 00:03:42,640 --> 00:03:49,480 women or succession rights that are enshrined in the law, and 63 00:03:49,480 --> 00:03:55,960 several other aspects, Hindu law does recognize many more rights 64 00:03:55,960 --> 00:03:59,200 of women than other personal laws. 65 00:03:59,880 --> 00:04:03,360 If you ask me personally, and I've I've always been a 66 00:04:03,360 --> 00:04:06,320 supporter of the idea of a uniform Civil Code, perhaps a 67 00:04:06,320 --> 00:04:09,160 minority among those who share my political beliefs. 68 00:04:10,920 --> 00:04:16,000 And I supported one because I think we have waited to see 69 00:04:16,720 --> 00:04:20,519 reforms come in, in the area of gender equality, in the area of 70 00:04:20,519 --> 00:04:25,520 child marriage, and those reforms have not come in in a 71 00:04:25,520 --> 00:04:27,640 lot of the religious laws so far. 72 00:04:28,360 --> 00:04:32,280 And the second reason is we see so many interfaith marriages. 73 00:04:32,640 --> 00:04:36,600 We see how it's treated as a as a community matter rather than 74 00:04:36,600 --> 00:04:40,280 an individual matter. We see how an individual's 75 00:04:40,280 --> 00:04:44,000 religion is treated not as a matter of their personal faith 76 00:04:44,480 --> 00:04:47,280 or a decision they make when they're adults, but as a matter 77 00:04:47,280 --> 00:04:50,840 of their birth. These are very irrational, 78 00:04:51,360 --> 00:04:55,760 outdated sort of concepts, and to my mind, only a uniform Civil 79 00:04:55,760 --> 00:05:00,800 Code can actually relegate religion to the personal, 80 00:05:00,800 --> 00:05:03,440 individual sphere where it should be, and remove it from 81 00:05:03,440 --> 00:05:05,800 the sphere of governance and community altogether. 82 00:05:06,240 --> 00:05:09,600 So frankly, if you ask me, that's the reason I do support 83 00:05:09,600 --> 00:05:12,040 the idea. Though I believe that this 84 00:05:12,040 --> 00:05:19,960 particular Bill A doesn't go far enough in most of its aspects 85 00:05:19,960 --> 00:05:24,200 and is basically a copy paste job of existing Hindu Marriage 86 00:05:24,200 --> 00:05:28,080 Act and Indian Succession Act and in the chapter of living 87 00:05:28,080 --> 00:05:30,920 relationships actually undermines both these goals. 88 00:05:31,920 --> 00:05:35,120 You know, one Muslim Personal Law Board member said that the 89 00:05:35,200 --> 00:05:38,640 absence of a personal law effectively nullifies the 90 00:05:38,640 --> 00:05:40,520 religion altogether in some ways. 91 00:05:40,840 --> 00:05:43,720 How would you view that argument given your own stand on it? 92 00:05:45,360 --> 00:05:49,440 It's complicated because I do understand that, you know, and I 93 00:05:49,440 --> 00:05:53,320 say this as an as an outsider to the Muslim community, but I do 94 00:05:53,320 --> 00:05:59,240 understand that Sharia law is considered an important part of 95 00:05:59,240 --> 00:06:05,240 Muslim belief and therefore a lot of Muslims feel that your 96 00:06:05,240 --> 00:06:08,680 personal belief system itself is nullified. 97 00:06:09,040 --> 00:06:11,800 If you do not have your own legal system, that is Sharia 98 00:06:11,800 --> 00:06:16,200 law. However, if you ask me, this is 99 00:06:16,200 --> 00:06:22,520 an idea whose time has come and the idea of a religion based 100 00:06:22,920 --> 00:06:27,320 civil law is outdated and really doesn't belong in a pluralistic 101 00:06:27,320 --> 00:06:30,440 democratic society. You see the complications it 102 00:06:30,440 --> 00:06:35,000 creates because once again it treats religion as something 103 00:06:35,000 --> 00:06:38,520 that belongs to the community, treats the community is fairly 104 00:06:38,520 --> 00:06:41,040 monolithic. There are minorities within 105 00:06:41,040 --> 00:06:45,320 communities. The clerics, male clerics who 106 00:06:45,320 --> 00:06:48,280 speak on behalf of the community, do not often speak on 107 00:06:48,280 --> 00:06:51,160 behalf of the most vulnerable within the community, do not 108 00:06:51,160 --> 00:06:53,680 often speak on behalf of women within the community. 109 00:06:54,360 --> 00:06:57,360 It does not really answer the question of an interfaith 110 00:06:57,360 --> 00:07:02,960 marriage where one party chooses not to convert to that religion. 111 00:07:03,280 --> 00:07:05,760 And you know, therefore it is just, it is simply not in 112 00:07:05,760 --> 00:07:10,120 keeping with the demands of a modern progressive society, as 113 00:07:10,120 --> 00:07:12,240 difficult as as that may be, to digest. 114 00:07:13,520 --> 00:07:17,920 Could you explain why in this particular code you have the 115 00:07:17,920 --> 00:07:20,960 tribal community being left out of it completely? 116 00:07:22,160 --> 00:07:25,120 So that's actually been something that has has been the 117 00:07:25,120 --> 00:07:30,640 case even in existing Hindu law and that tribal communities were 118 00:07:30,640 --> 00:07:34,560 left out and exceptions were made for customary practices. 119 00:07:34,560 --> 00:07:38,880 Which is why, you know, in certain communities, child 120 00:07:38,880 --> 00:07:42,360 marriage not only persists but is illegally permitted to 121 00:07:42,360 --> 00:07:46,240 persist. However, I think that if you 122 00:07:46,240 --> 00:07:51,320 have a community based personal law system, then that may still 123 00:07:51,320 --> 00:07:53,320 make some sense. But if you are trying to 124 00:07:53,320 --> 00:07:57,240 implement something called a uniform Civil Code, and you 125 00:07:57,240 --> 00:08:00,160 know, as the Chief Minister said yesterday, this is part of what 126 00:08:00,160 --> 00:08:04,240 he considers Ek Bharat sreesh, Bharat Ek Bharat Ek nyay Ek 127 00:08:04,240 --> 00:08:08,920 kanun, then it really makes no sense as to why tribal 128 00:08:08,920 --> 00:08:12,680 communities have been left out. And it really then does 129 00:08:12,680 --> 00:08:16,320 reinforce the view that this is done with an eye towards 130 00:08:16,320 --> 00:08:20,520 elections. One aspect that this law does 131 00:08:21,480 --> 00:08:24,360 take care of is this sort of fixing of an age limit for 132 00:08:24,360 --> 00:08:27,560 marriage for men and women. How do you view this aspect? 133 00:08:28,640 --> 00:08:31,680 Frankly, I I don't see a problem with fixing a minimum 134 00:08:31,680 --> 00:08:35,960 marriageable age in theory, though the fact remains that it 135 00:08:35,960 --> 00:08:37,919 is difficult to enforce in practice. 136 00:08:38,799 --> 00:08:43,159 We saw earlier when this was discussed, there were a lot of 137 00:08:43,679 --> 00:08:47,960 criticisms from rural communities, tribal communities, 138 00:08:47,960 --> 00:08:50,400 etcetera, not just about their religious and cultural 139 00:08:50,400 --> 00:08:54,960 practices, but also, you know, from the point of view of safety 140 00:08:54,960 --> 00:08:59,320 where they stay very often getting married, getting married 141 00:08:59,360 --> 00:09:04,720 early is is the only way to they feel to protect one's daughter 142 00:09:04,720 --> 00:09:08,080 from sexual violence. And also there are a lot of 143 00:09:08,080 --> 00:09:10,720 financial complications associated with it. 144 00:09:10,720 --> 00:09:13,680 But having said that, I think that these are issues that need 145 00:09:13,680 --> 00:09:17,440 to be dealt with separately. I don't think that in theory 146 00:09:17,440 --> 00:09:21,120 there's a problem with a minimum marriageable age, whether it is, 147 00:09:21,600 --> 00:09:25,720 whether it is 18 or 21 though. What I find remarkable is that 148 00:09:26,600 --> 00:09:29,360 the Uttarakhand Civil Code continues with a different 149 00:09:29,360 --> 00:09:32,960 marriage age for men and women, which is 18 for women and 21 for 150 00:09:32,960 --> 00:09:37,120 men, which is what it is in the Hindu Marriage Act as well. 151 00:09:37,880 --> 00:09:42,000 And there's really no reason for that different marriageable age. 152 00:09:42,640 --> 00:09:45,880 Frankly, the idea of a marriageable age of 21 makes no 153 00:09:45,880 --> 00:09:49,520 sense when a person can vote and do everything else at the age of 154 00:09:49,520 --> 00:09:52,480 18. The age of 18 is the age of 155 00:09:52,480 --> 00:09:54,960 consent for sexual relations under Indian law. 156 00:09:55,320 --> 00:09:59,680 It is the age of adulthood. Under Indian law, there's really 157 00:09:59,680 --> 00:10:02,680 no reason why a person can't get married at the age of 18, 158 00:10:02,680 --> 00:10:04,720 especially when women can and men cannot. 159 00:10:05,520 --> 00:10:08,440 I think that having this differential marriageable age 160 00:10:08,480 --> 00:10:14,280 again points to a very stereotyped idea of gender roles 161 00:10:14,280 --> 00:10:16,840 within a marriage. Could you explain why? 162 00:10:18,000 --> 00:10:21,760 That's been the general stereotypical understanding that 163 00:10:22,000 --> 00:10:26,480 women should get married at a younger age, women mature at a 164 00:10:26,480 --> 00:10:31,040 younger age as compared to men, that men need to be the 165 00:10:31,040 --> 00:10:34,200 providers, therefore they need to, you know, get a degree, they 166 00:10:34,200 --> 00:10:36,280 need to go to college, they need to earn money. 167 00:10:36,280 --> 00:10:39,440 They cannot be getting married at such a young age, whereas for 168 00:10:39,440 --> 00:10:40,920 women it's fine. You know those kind of 169 00:10:40,920 --> 00:10:43,520 stereotypes. I believe that the committee 170 00:10:43,520 --> 00:10:47,240 that was behind the Uttarakhand Civil Code did go around the 171 00:10:47,240 --> 00:10:51,320 state speaking to families in different regions of the state, 172 00:10:51,760 --> 00:10:56,680 and this is possibly in part based on feedback, particularly 173 00:10:56,680 --> 00:11:00,040 from parents from whom, I believe a large part of the 174 00:11:00,040 --> 00:11:03,600 feedback was taken. Then wouldn't it be worrying if 175 00:11:03,600 --> 00:11:07,040 this then travels to many other states as well? 176 00:11:07,960 --> 00:11:10,760 It would particularly because the Uttarakhand Civil Code has a 177 00:11:10,760 --> 00:11:13,320 very strange definition of who it applies to. 178 00:11:13,680 --> 00:11:16,080 People domiciled within the state, people resident within 179 00:11:16,080 --> 00:11:19,360 the state, People who are not resident within the state but 180 00:11:19,800 --> 00:11:21,760 employed by the state. You know it. 181 00:11:21,840 --> 00:11:26,320 It has a very broad, irrational definition of the people who it 182 00:11:26,320 --> 00:11:29,800 applies to. And if every other state, or at 183 00:11:29,800 --> 00:11:33,000 least you know even half the states in India, apply something 184 00:11:33,000 --> 00:11:36,560 like that, then it it is very worrying. 185 00:11:36,760 --> 00:11:40,400 It would apply to many more people than just the residents 186 00:11:40,400 --> 00:11:43,360 of those states. And then of course there is the 187 00:11:43,520 --> 00:11:46,160 the fact that people don't just marry others from within their 188 00:11:46,160 --> 00:11:49,880 state, so it would affect people who otherwise have nothing to do 189 00:11:50,240 --> 00:11:55,160 with these states as well. And in terms of the outlawing of 190 00:11:55,160 --> 00:11:58,640 polygamy and bigamy, what does this law do? 191 00:11:58,640 --> 00:12:02,680 By effectively banning it, does it effectively become a better 192 00:12:02,680 --> 00:12:04,720 deterrent against these practices? 193 00:12:06,000 --> 00:12:09,360 There's nothing wrong with outlawing polygamy or bigamy. 194 00:12:10,280 --> 00:12:12,720 However, it may not have been that relevant because I don't 195 00:12:12,720 --> 00:12:15,640 think these practices are very widespread among the Muslim 196 00:12:15,640 --> 00:12:19,120 community in India. I think it was always used more 197 00:12:19,120 --> 00:12:24,160 as a bit of a a bogeyman by the Hindu right calling for a 198 00:12:24,160 --> 00:12:27,120 uniform Civil Code. But there's really no problem 199 00:12:27,120 --> 00:12:31,600 with outlawing such practices. I think it's again an idea whose 200 00:12:31,600 --> 00:12:35,400 time has come and it's these these are practices that do in 201 00:12:35,400 --> 00:12:42,000 fact hurt the women involved, and this is not something that I 202 00:12:42,000 --> 00:12:46,960 particularly oppose. Another major aspect of this law 203 00:12:46,960 --> 00:12:50,520 is the inheritance of property and distribution of property. 204 00:12:50,640 --> 00:12:53,880 In the case of death, there's an inclusion of parents as 205 00:12:53,880 --> 00:12:56,600 beneficiaries and even of children outside wedlock. 206 00:12:57,080 --> 00:13:02,240 How does this change what we have and is it truly like leap 207 00:13:02,240 --> 00:13:06,840 forward in that sense? To be honest, I've looked at the 208 00:13:06,880 --> 00:13:11,080 the succession part of this code very cursorily. 209 00:13:11,760 --> 00:13:16,160 It seems to be more or less a replication of the Indian 210 00:13:16,160 --> 00:13:20,240 Succession Act with certain modifications made. 211 00:13:20,720 --> 00:13:25,280 By and large it does seem to be a move forward, particularly 212 00:13:26,160 --> 00:13:29,440 with respect to children born out of wedlock and sons and 213 00:13:29,440 --> 00:13:31,360 daughters being treated equally throughout. 214 00:13:32,000 --> 00:13:37,400 It requires a lot of in depth research and possibly a lawyer 215 00:13:37,400 --> 00:13:40,480 specializing in matters of succession and inheritance would 216 00:13:40,480 --> 00:13:44,160 be best placed to answer this. You know, you mentioned the fact 217 00:13:44,160 --> 00:13:48,200 that there are laws within the personal laws that whose time 218 00:13:48,200 --> 00:13:52,000 has come in a sense. Are there any that you feel have 219 00:13:52,000 --> 00:13:55,680 been missed in this specific code that's been passed? 220 00:13:56,800 --> 00:14:00,960 Yes, as I said, one, there is a differential age of marriage, 221 00:14:00,960 --> 00:14:04,240 minimum age of marriage for men and women, which I don't think 222 00:14:04,240 --> 00:14:08,200 makes any sense. And secondly, I think that there 223 00:14:08,200 --> 00:14:10,400 are still very limited grounds of divorce. 224 00:14:10,960 --> 00:14:14,680 I think we would do well to borrow from Muslim personal law 225 00:14:14,680 --> 00:14:20,240 on the aspect of treating marriage as a contract where 226 00:14:20,880 --> 00:14:25,080 both parties have to consent and if either party changes their 227 00:14:25,080 --> 00:14:28,400 mind, there's nothing left in the marriage and the only thing 228 00:14:28,840 --> 00:14:33,200 left to do is to give it, give it a dignified burial and be 229 00:14:33,200 --> 00:14:36,600 done with it. I think that holding on to 230 00:14:36,600 --> 00:14:41,960 marriage, being forced to stay in unhappy marriages because 231 00:14:41,960 --> 00:14:45,680 divorce is made so difficult under Hindu law, and that's sort 232 00:14:45,680 --> 00:14:47,880 of what has been replicated over here. 233 00:14:48,160 --> 00:14:51,440 In large part, I think that is very, very problematic. 234 00:14:51,720 --> 00:14:55,560 I have long been a proponent of bringing in the concept of 235 00:14:55,560 --> 00:14:59,720 irretrievable breakdown of marriage by either party and I 236 00:14:59,720 --> 00:15:02,320 think that a limited grounds of divorce is 1 area. 237 00:15:03,320 --> 00:15:06,000 We still don't criminalize marital rape. 238 00:15:06,480 --> 00:15:09,320 I mean I don't know what gender equality within the family one 239 00:15:09,320 --> 00:15:12,120 can talk about. You know, when the same party 240 00:15:12,120 --> 00:15:15,640 bringing in this law opposes every move to outlaw marital 241 00:15:15,640 --> 00:15:19,560 rape, they need to, at the very least now go hand in hand. 242 00:15:20,400 --> 00:15:24,240 You have, you know, grounds for divorce and annulment include 243 00:15:25,000 --> 00:15:28,040 where a man has been found guilty of raping another woman, 244 00:15:28,040 --> 00:15:29,840 but where the man is guilty of raping you. 245 00:15:29,840 --> 00:15:32,440 That's not a ground for divorce. I find that quite bizarre. 246 00:15:33,560 --> 00:15:36,520 There are certain missed opportunities that could have 247 00:15:36,520 --> 00:15:41,080 been done if perhaps little more time had been spent on it. 248 00:15:50,580 --> 00:15:53,340 We're back in conversation with Mihira Sood about the Uniform 249 00:15:53,340 --> 00:15:55,940 Civil Code that has been passed by the Uttarakhand government. 250 00:15:56,440 --> 00:15:58,440 While we discussed the broad aspects of this code in the 251 00:15:58,440 --> 00:16:01,000 first half of the episode, we're now focusing on the most 252 00:16:01,000 --> 00:16:04,160 controversial bits of the code, and that's about how the 253 00:16:04,160 --> 00:16:06,600 government plans to deal with live in relationships. 254 00:16:07,080 --> 00:16:10,080 The Uttarakhand government plans to make it mandatory for couples 255 00:16:10,080 --> 00:16:13,200 entering live in relationships to both register a live in 256 00:16:13,200 --> 00:16:16,360 relationship and also inform them if the relationship falls 257 00:16:16,360 --> 00:16:18,960 apart. But Mira Sood says it's wrong to 258 00:16:18,960 --> 00:16:21,920 call this process a registration given how it is to be 259 00:16:21,920 --> 00:16:23,760 implemented. And she says there are very 260 00:16:23,760 --> 00:16:26,800 clear targets of this law. She also analyzes whether the 261 00:16:26,800 --> 00:16:29,880 Uniform Civil Code actually improves the legal rights of 262 00:16:29,880 --> 00:16:33,880 women like it promises to. We started by asking her about 263 00:16:33,880 --> 00:16:36,960 what is classified as a live in relationship under Indian law. 264 00:16:38,520 --> 00:16:43,560 So the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code Bill now seeks to regulate 265 00:16:43,560 --> 00:16:46,640 live in relationships of its residents both within and 266 00:16:46,640 --> 00:16:51,120 outside its territory. But does the Supreme Court have 267 00:16:51,160 --> 00:16:54,480 a view of what live in relationships are? 268 00:16:55,760 --> 00:16:59,960 So the code itself defines a live in relationship as one 269 00:16:59,960 --> 00:17:04,440 where partners are cohabiting in a shared household, in a 270 00:17:04,440 --> 00:17:06,440 relationship, in the nature of marriage. 271 00:17:06,440 --> 00:17:08,000 That's the language that is used. 272 00:17:08,000 --> 00:17:12,520 So presumably when they say the nature of marriage and we have 273 00:17:12,520 --> 00:17:16,160 an entire body of case law, we have provisions like, you know, 274 00:17:16,160 --> 00:17:19,480 conjugal rights. So we know that when when the 275 00:17:19,480 --> 00:17:22,400 law says in the nature of marriage, it presumes sexual 276 00:17:22,400 --> 00:17:25,079 relations as well. And that's considered an 277 00:17:25,079 --> 00:17:27,960 essential part. So it is basically is referring 278 00:17:27,960 --> 00:17:31,920 to a cohabiting in a shared household, with sexual relations 279 00:17:31,920 --> 00:17:36,960 being part of that arrangement. There has been a concern about 280 00:17:37,960 --> 00:17:42,600 the question of penalizing people who do not register their 281 00:17:42,880 --> 00:17:46,920 relationship. Could you tell us where the 282 00:17:46,920 --> 00:17:51,600 element of crime comes into being in a live in relationship? 283 00:17:52,800 --> 00:17:57,400 Well, the official justification for requiring registration is 284 00:17:57,400 --> 00:18:01,080 that the committee spoke to a lot of parents. 285 00:18:02,040 --> 00:18:06,480 There was a lot of concern about violent crimes against women 286 00:18:07,000 --> 00:18:10,960 being committed by the partners they were cohabiting with the 287 00:18:11,000 --> 00:18:14,600 Shradha Aftab case, you know, being a case in point, and 288 00:18:14,600 --> 00:18:18,400 others like that where women were quite brutally killed by 289 00:18:18,400 --> 00:18:22,520 their living partners. And it was somehow felt that 290 00:18:23,280 --> 00:18:28,280 making this process stringent, having an inquiry and a 291 00:18:28,280 --> 00:18:31,120 verification prior to being able to enter into a living 292 00:18:31,120 --> 00:18:35,080 relationship will act as some kind of mental deterrent and 293 00:18:35,120 --> 00:18:38,120 also that live in relationships are recognized all over the 294 00:18:38,120 --> 00:18:40,320 world. So this is a way of recognizing 295 00:18:40,320 --> 00:18:43,480 it, which was felt by the government to be very 296 00:18:43,480 --> 00:18:47,840 progressive. Now this is quite complicated. 297 00:18:47,840 --> 00:18:49,960 It's it's a little problematic 1. 298 00:18:50,800 --> 00:18:54,320 Registration does not prevent crime. 299 00:18:54,760 --> 00:18:57,160 Marriages are registered. Marriages are official 300 00:18:57,560 --> 00:19:00,520 relationships. In the eyes of the law, that 301 00:19:00,520 --> 00:19:02,960 does not mean that violent crime does not take place within 302 00:19:02,960 --> 00:19:04,960 marriage or that it is any kind of deterrent. 303 00:19:05,520 --> 00:19:08,840 You you have dowry deaths, you have physical cruelty and abuse, 304 00:19:08,840 --> 00:19:12,440 you have sexual violence. All these crimes that that 305 00:19:12,440 --> 00:19:16,440 people are worried about take place as much and more within 306 00:19:16,440 --> 00:19:19,680 the institution of marriage. Registration has nothing to do 307 00:19:19,680 --> 00:19:23,480 with it. And ironically, while the ACT 308 00:19:23,720 --> 00:19:26,600 recommends registration of marriages, there is no 309 00:19:26,600 --> 00:19:29,960 punishment for non registration, but there is a punishment for 310 00:19:29,960 --> 00:19:33,200 non registration of a living relationship. 311 00:19:33,520 --> 00:19:35,520 And that anomaly again makes no sense. 312 00:19:36,200 --> 00:19:39,720 And then when it comes to recognizing living relationships 313 00:19:39,720 --> 00:19:44,280 and you know going the way of of Western countries where they've 314 00:19:44,280 --> 00:19:47,880 had a lot more experience with these kinds of relationships in 315 00:19:47,880 --> 00:19:50,480 the law, this is not what they do. 316 00:19:51,080 --> 00:19:53,600 They do not require registration. 317 00:19:53,600 --> 00:19:55,600 And also let's be clear, this is not just a matter of 318 00:19:55,600 --> 00:19:58,720 registration, this is a matter of taking permission because the 319 00:19:58,720 --> 00:20:00,640 registrar can actually deny permission. 320 00:20:01,280 --> 00:20:04,000 It is not that the registrar is simply registering it. 321 00:20:05,120 --> 00:20:06,640 Permission can actually be denied. 322 00:20:07,320 --> 00:20:10,040 That is absolutely not what happens in Western countries. 323 00:20:10,400 --> 00:20:13,600 All that happens is you have, you have you know what is called 324 00:20:14,320 --> 00:20:17,360 long term relationship or common law marriage where after a few 325 00:20:17,360 --> 00:20:20,600 years. Where a couple has been living 326 00:20:20,600 --> 00:20:25,400 in a marriage like relationship, it is recognized to the point 327 00:20:25,400 --> 00:20:30,080 where if a dispute arises and comes to court, you know the end 328 00:20:30,080 --> 00:20:33,080 of the relationship. For example, whether it is with 329 00:20:33,120 --> 00:20:37,280 regard to maintenance or child support, then the court applies 330 00:20:37,280 --> 00:20:40,880 the same yardsticks that it would apply in the case of a 331 00:20:40,880 --> 00:20:43,000 marriage. Because the court treats it as a 332 00:20:43,000 --> 00:20:47,360 de facto marriage, there is no question of prior registration 333 00:20:48,400 --> 00:20:51,560 that the Uttarakhand government is trying to do here. 334 00:20:52,920 --> 00:20:58,880 How does this law understand live in relationships And even 335 00:20:58,880 --> 00:21:02,600 though it stipulates 30 days as having cohabiting with a person, 336 00:21:03,160 --> 00:21:06,840 who actually decides whether people are staying or or people 337 00:21:06,840 --> 00:21:09,760 are coming or going out? And then what kind of problems 338 00:21:09,760 --> 00:21:14,800 does this raise in society? So yes, a live in relationship. 339 00:21:14,800 --> 00:21:17,600 I mean the entire point of it is that it's meant to be a more 340 00:21:17,600 --> 00:21:21,160 informal, casual relationship for people who do not want it to 341 00:21:21,160 --> 00:21:25,000 be treated like a marriage. There is an argument to be made 342 00:21:25,000 --> 00:21:28,120 that it should be treated like one when it has been in 343 00:21:28,120 --> 00:21:31,440 existence long enough. I think the standard for common 344 00:21:31,440 --> 00:21:34,080 law marriages in some countries, for example, is five years. 345 00:21:34,440 --> 00:21:38,920 That's a very different kind of situation from, you know, within 346 00:21:38,920 --> 00:21:41,400 30 days you have to register your relationship. 347 00:21:42,560 --> 00:21:44,600 You know what is very problematic here? 348 00:21:44,880 --> 00:21:47,760 If you heard the Chief Minister talk about it yesterday also, 349 00:21:47,760 --> 00:21:51,360 and he kept, he was referring to the concerns that parents raised 350 00:21:51,360 --> 00:21:55,640 about crimes against women and kept talking about, you know, we 351 00:21:55,640 --> 00:21:58,640 have to protect our children. And the fact of the matter is 352 00:21:58,640 --> 00:22:02,240 they're not children. And that I think is is really 353 00:22:02,240 --> 00:22:05,320 the crux of it. So you can enter into a marriage 354 00:22:05,320 --> 00:22:07,480 at the age of 18 without your parents permission, but you 355 00:22:07,480 --> 00:22:10,600 cannot enter into a living relationship until you're 21 356 00:22:10,600 --> 00:22:13,960 without your parents permission. So there's an infantilisation, 357 00:22:13,960 --> 00:22:17,160 and specifically of women here, because for men the age is 21 358 00:22:17,160 --> 00:22:20,560 either way. But women who are considered of 359 00:22:20,560 --> 00:22:22,800 marriageable age at 18 cannot enter into a living 360 00:22:22,800 --> 00:22:25,080 relationship. So it makes it quite clear what 361 00:22:25,080 --> 00:22:27,840 the intent is. And then the fact is that the 362 00:22:27,840 --> 00:22:30,040 registrar can deny permission on certain grounds. 363 00:22:30,040 --> 00:22:31,640 Some of them are pretty straightforward. 364 00:22:31,840 --> 00:22:35,400 For example, if either party is under 18, nothing that really 365 00:22:35,400 --> 00:22:37,480 requires judicial application of mind. 366 00:22:37,880 --> 00:22:40,800 But then you have the last ground on which the registrar 367 00:22:40,800 --> 00:22:44,080 can deny permission. And that is where the registrar 368 00:22:44,120 --> 00:22:47,400 is of the opinion that the consent of either party is 369 00:22:47,400 --> 00:22:50,760 vitiated either by fraud, misrepresentation, undue 370 00:22:50,760 --> 00:22:53,880 influence, coercion, etcetera, including as to a person's 371 00:22:53,880 --> 00:22:58,280 identity. Now, this is really where the 372 00:22:58,280 --> 00:23:02,040 meat of the provision lies, because we know that and we've 373 00:23:02,040 --> 00:23:05,720 seen so many interfaith couples with the parents, the community 374 00:23:05,720 --> 00:23:09,640 elders, etcetera, complain to the police that, you know, my 375 00:23:09,640 --> 00:23:13,760 daughter has been defrauded. This person lied to her about 376 00:23:13,760 --> 00:23:16,600 his religion. He pretended he belonged to this 377 00:23:16,600 --> 00:23:20,320 religion, but actually he did not, or there was undue 378 00:23:20,320 --> 00:23:23,920 influence on her to convert. You know, this kind of thing is 379 00:23:24,200 --> 00:23:27,960 has become very common. This is exactly what this 380 00:23:27,960 --> 00:23:31,760 provision is, is focusing on and is permitting. 381 00:23:32,960 --> 00:23:36,080 And the fact of the matter is also that who is the registrar? 382 00:23:36,080 --> 00:23:39,760 The registrar is not a judge. The registrar is not qualified 383 00:23:40,200 --> 00:23:44,000 to exercise judicial discretion in this manner to look at 384 00:23:44,000 --> 00:23:46,960 whether or not consent has been vitiated. 385 00:23:46,960 --> 00:23:50,680 This is the function of a judge. It's quite clear that the target 386 00:23:50,680 --> 00:23:54,560 of this provision is interfaith relationships, inter caste 387 00:23:54,560 --> 00:23:57,560 relationships and other, you know, relationships where the 388 00:23:57,560 --> 00:24:01,320 parents have an objection on the basis of, you know, community 389 00:24:01,320 --> 00:24:05,920 concerns. And most worrying is that anyone 390 00:24:05,920 --> 00:24:09,440 can submit a complaint that a relationship is not registered 391 00:24:10,640 --> 00:24:13,480 and then the registrar can conduct an inquiry. 392 00:24:14,160 --> 00:24:16,920 And that could be a landlord, it could be a neighbour, it could 393 00:24:16,920 --> 00:24:20,720 be a parents, it could be some Romeo squad, it could be a local 394 00:24:20,720 --> 00:24:25,200 Shaka, It could be any random busy body who has, you know, 395 00:24:25,200 --> 00:24:28,080 seen when we see, we see this countless times, couples getting 396 00:24:28,080 --> 00:24:32,600 beaten up in a park recently, it was in fact cousins who people 397 00:24:32,600 --> 00:24:34,640 assumed were an interfaith couple. 398 00:24:34,960 --> 00:24:37,720 You know, these kind of things keep happening and that's really 399 00:24:38,000 --> 00:24:40,560 that that's the level of interference that the government 400 00:24:40,560 --> 00:24:44,440 is permitting and encouraging with this kind of a law. 401 00:24:45,680 --> 00:24:49,160 Also the fact that the law allows for a sort of 402 00:24:49,160 --> 00:24:52,120 deregistering of the relationship as well. 403 00:24:52,280 --> 00:24:54,200 Like what is even the logic of that? 404 00:24:55,600 --> 00:24:57,880 I think it's not something that's seen a great deal of 405 00:24:57,880 --> 00:25:00,880 application of mind by the persons who've made the law. 406 00:25:00,960 --> 00:25:03,720 It's treating a live in relationship and it's 407 00:25:03,720 --> 00:25:08,520 dissolution like a marriage and divorce, even though the intent 408 00:25:08,520 --> 00:25:11,040 of entering behind either of them is quite different. 409 00:25:11,640 --> 00:25:15,560 The provisions for maintenance that the code itself provides 410 00:25:15,560 --> 00:25:18,640 are different in in live, in relationships and in marriage. 411 00:25:19,000 --> 00:25:22,760 But they seem to be wanting to treat it like like a divorce and 412 00:25:22,760 --> 00:25:26,720 they want to maintain a a public register of live in 413 00:25:26,720 --> 00:25:29,880 relationships. For what purpose? 414 00:25:29,880 --> 00:25:33,280 This has not been made very clear and these are things that 415 00:25:34,480 --> 00:25:37,400 hopefully will will be asked by a court very soon. 416 00:25:38,760 --> 00:25:43,040 In the law, it says that there is no particularly qualifier 417 00:25:43,040 --> 00:25:46,960 explanation as to what constitutes, you know, 418 00:25:46,960 --> 00:25:51,720 suspicious information and what appropriate action the police 419 00:25:51,720 --> 00:25:55,600 might take beyond the penalty that's been prescribed in the 420 00:25:55,800 --> 00:25:58,280 clause. Could you elaborate? 421 00:25:59,520 --> 00:26:02,280 Yeah, it says any, any information that is fraudulent, 422 00:26:02,280 --> 00:26:05,000 any if they've lied about anything regarding their 423 00:26:05,000 --> 00:26:06,680 identity. And that's very vague. 424 00:26:07,160 --> 00:26:09,800 You know, I think the obvious target there, as I said, is 425 00:26:09,800 --> 00:26:13,320 religious identity. But it could even be, you know, 426 00:26:13,440 --> 00:26:19,280 things like income level or past sexual history, things like 427 00:26:19,280 --> 00:26:22,920 that, where a partner may feel that I should have known about 428 00:26:22,920 --> 00:26:26,920 this before, or if a partner is just disillusioned with the 429 00:26:26,920 --> 00:26:30,920 relationship and wants to end it, You know, very often then 430 00:26:30,920 --> 00:26:33,680 these kind of accusations come out because you've been living 431 00:26:33,680 --> 00:26:37,480 together and you feel that society will not accept you back 432 00:26:38,200 --> 00:26:40,160 unless you make these kind of accusations. 433 00:26:41,520 --> 00:26:46,640 At a time when when we are seeing vigilantism rising, you 434 00:26:46,640 --> 00:26:51,680 know, RW as entering into one's homes and coming up with bizarre 435 00:26:51,680 --> 00:26:56,400 rules, you have this law which literally puts people's 436 00:26:56,400 --> 00:27:00,280 relationships under scanner. What kind of toll does it take 437 00:27:00,280 --> 00:27:04,800 on on young people today? I mean, that's a very good 438 00:27:04,800 --> 00:27:06,520 question. And I I really would like to 439 00:27:06,520 --> 00:27:10,680 know if the committee that looked at and they took this 440 00:27:10,680 --> 00:27:13,640 kind of stakeholder feedback consulted young people at all. 441 00:27:13,640 --> 00:27:17,960 Because all we heard was how they spoke to parents, of of 442 00:27:18,360 --> 00:27:21,640 parents of women who have been in live in relationship and live 443 00:27:21,640 --> 00:27:24,480 relationships and parents were concerned about their daughters 444 00:27:25,120 --> 00:27:27,760 getting into such relationships. And I really would really like 445 00:27:27,760 --> 00:27:31,640 to know if anybody thought it worthwhile to consult with young 446 00:27:31,640 --> 00:27:36,000 people at all and ask them how they feel about it and what sort 447 00:27:36,000 --> 00:27:39,920 of protections they would like in these situations. 448 00:27:40,120 --> 00:27:42,880 Have they spoken to people who are actually in live in 449 00:27:42,880 --> 00:27:46,400 relationships and what concerns they might have or they might 450 00:27:46,400 --> 00:27:49,600 foresee for themselves in the future or they might think are 451 00:27:50,120 --> 00:27:53,480 have seen among their friends? That is something that I think 452 00:27:53,480 --> 00:27:58,480 would have really given us a lot more insight rather than, you 453 00:27:58,480 --> 00:28:00,240 know, this paternalistic concern. 454 00:28:01,200 --> 00:28:03,680 The lowest past is also very complex in terms of which 455 00:28:03,680 --> 00:28:05,880 couples need to register their live in relationships. 456 00:28:06,320 --> 00:28:08,720 It also says that if your live in relationship isn't 457 00:28:08,720 --> 00:28:11,680 registered, it could mean ineligibility to get government 458 00:28:11,680 --> 00:28:15,720 benefits and possible jail time. Mira Sood says it's very clear 459 00:28:15,720 --> 00:28:18,520 that the law will affect some couples far more than others. 460 00:28:19,360 --> 00:28:21,680 There are some couples it's going to affect and some couples 461 00:28:21,680 --> 00:28:25,640 who will go unscathed by this because basically if somebody 462 00:28:25,640 --> 00:28:29,600 complaints about you then it's going to be a problem. 463 00:28:30,160 --> 00:28:35,520 Who it affects is really people who are not so mobile, who are 464 00:28:35,520 --> 00:28:39,120 basically stuck in in that one place, in that one community 465 00:28:39,120 --> 00:28:42,080 where from where they don't really live, where everybody 466 00:28:42,080 --> 00:28:47,480 knows them, where perhaps their parents are objecting to this 467 00:28:47,480 --> 00:28:51,080 kind of relationship and their parents know where they are, 468 00:28:51,600 --> 00:28:56,720 where they do not have the wherewithal to to rent a place. 469 00:28:57,280 --> 00:29:00,320 You have a landlord who refuses to rent you their place without 470 00:29:00,320 --> 00:29:04,240 your parents permission or without your registration 471 00:29:04,240 --> 00:29:06,920 documents. You know these kind of things. 472 00:29:06,920 --> 00:29:10,920 They will be applied very unevenly across across the state 473 00:29:10,920 --> 00:29:15,440 and across the country. And if we do get this sort of 474 00:29:15,440 --> 00:29:20,600 patchwork of civil codes, where some states have these specific 475 00:29:20,600 --> 00:29:25,240 laws, some don't, what does that really mean going ahead? 476 00:29:26,840 --> 00:29:29,960 Your guess is as good as mine, quite frankly. 477 00:29:30,400 --> 00:29:33,480 I think at least in the states that do have it, it's quite 478 00:29:33,480 --> 00:29:37,320 likely to be a copy paste job. So at least those states will 479 00:29:37,320 --> 00:29:41,720 have an identical code. The BJP I think is quite clear 480 00:29:41,720 --> 00:29:43,960 that this is something they want for the entire country. 481 00:29:44,480 --> 00:29:48,680 Maybe they want to go slow on it for now, but once you have 482 00:29:48,920 --> 00:29:53,440 781012 states that have it, it'll be much easier for them to 483 00:29:53,440 --> 00:29:56,920 impose it and there'll be much less resistance when they impose 484 00:29:56,920 --> 00:29:58,920 it across the country. So maybe that is what will 485 00:29:58,920 --> 00:30:00,920 happen, but as I said, your guess is as good as mine. 486 00:30:02,160 --> 00:30:06,320 Also, a lot of this Civil Code is being cited as being 487 00:30:06,600 --> 00:30:09,920 beneficial for women, including the fact that, you know, like 488 00:30:09,920 --> 00:30:11,880 you said, in live in relationships it's treated like 489 00:30:11,880 --> 00:30:15,960 a marriage where a woman has maintenance and inheritance 490 00:30:15,960 --> 00:30:18,160 rights if there is a child from that relationship. 491 00:30:18,560 --> 00:30:22,160 How do you view that claim? Look, you can give all these. 492 00:30:22,160 --> 00:30:25,480 I'm also giving these rights even in a provided the live in 493 00:30:25,480 --> 00:30:27,920 relationship has been sufficiently long term. 494 00:30:28,320 --> 00:30:30,640 I'm also giving these rights. I think that's that's a 495 00:30:30,640 --> 00:30:35,160 progressive move, but that can be done without this requirement 496 00:30:35,160 --> 00:30:37,400 of prior consent for your living relationship. 497 00:30:37,400 --> 00:30:40,600 And as I keep saying, let's not call it registration, it is 498 00:30:40,600 --> 00:30:43,560 permission. Mihira Sood says the Uttarakhand 499 00:30:43,560 --> 00:30:47,560 Uniform Civil Code may promise more rights for women, but it 500 00:30:47,560 --> 00:30:49,560 seems to be delivering something else. 501 00:30:50,720 --> 00:30:55,600 Anytime a law comes in that says it's for the protection of 502 00:30:55,600 --> 00:31:00,080 women, large sections of society do support it because on the 503 00:31:00,080 --> 00:31:02,520 face of it, there's nothing wrong with that. 504 00:31:02,520 --> 00:31:05,160 And everybody wants it. And, you know, everybody wants 505 00:31:05,160 --> 00:31:11,200 their children, their daughters to be safe, but nobody seems to 506 00:31:11,200 --> 00:31:16,360 really scratch the surface of that and understand that if 507 00:31:16,360 --> 00:31:19,880 protection just means locking your daughters up, preventing 508 00:31:19,880 --> 00:31:22,640 them from meeting anybody, entering into any relationship 509 00:31:22,640 --> 00:31:27,360 or exercising their free choice or autonomy in any manner, then 510 00:31:27,480 --> 00:31:31,960 that's not really protection. Locking up somebody is is not a 511 00:31:31,960 --> 00:31:35,280 way to go about it. If you're talking about gender 512 00:31:35,280 --> 00:31:37,400 equality, that is just protectionism. 513 00:31:37,920 --> 00:31:41,240 If you want equality, you have to work on empowerment, which is 514 00:31:41,240 --> 00:31:43,840 much harder. You have to really give rights. 515 00:31:44,120 --> 00:31:47,360 You have to recognize them, You have to train your officers to 516 00:31:47,360 --> 00:31:52,560 recognize them, and people have to be vigilant to then act 517 00:31:52,560 --> 00:31:54,680 against any violation of those rights. 518 00:31:55,280 --> 00:31:58,720 Which may well happen, you know, but it's it's a lot harder. 519 00:31:59,160 --> 00:32:04,760 It's very easy to win votes on grounds of protectionism, but 520 00:32:04,760 --> 00:32:11,160 that's not real equality. Today's episode was produced by 521 00:32:11,160 --> 00:32:15,760 Jayaraj Singh and Sahil Gupta. For a daily spotlight on people, 522 00:32:15,800 --> 00:32:18,520 ideas and stories that matter, subscribe to us. 523 00:32:18,920 --> 00:32:23,360 We are available on TOI, Spotify, Apple, Google, Podcast, 524 00:32:23,560 --> 00:32:25,320 and all other platforms of your choice. 525 00:32:25,760 --> 00:32:30,480 For any news tips, e-mail us at TOI Podcast at Timesinternet dot 526 00:32:30,480 --> 00:32:30,800 in.