Nainital. The Uttarakhand High Court has asked the state government whether it can invite new suggestions on the recently implemented Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in the state and consider making amendments wherever necessary. A division bench of Senior Judge Justice Manoj Tiwari and Justice Ashish Naithani on Thursday asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta during hearing two new petitions challenging the provisions of UCC about Sahaivasi (live -in).
Mehta, who attended the hearing through a video conference, said in response to the question that all the suggestions are always welcome. According to Chief Permanent Advocate CS Rawat, the court also asked the Solicitor General to request the state assembly to make necessary amendments to the UCC. UCC has come into force in Uttarakhand from 27 January this year. The court also sought to know from the state government through the chief permanent lawyer whether it is ready for necessary changes in the UCC.
PILs have challenged the constitutionality of the information sought from the couple at the time of compulsory registration of live -these relations on the basis that it is feared to be violated by their privacy. The High Court has also associated this petition with other petitions filed earlier, which are to be heard simultaneously on April 1. The court has given the state government four weeks to file a counter affidavit in this case. While hearing PILs, the High Court asked Vrinda Grover, the advocate of a petitioner, whether the provisions of the UCC of compulsory registration of these relatives could be challenged as non -constitutional.
The court said that the number of live -these relations is increasing but they do not have complete social acceptance. He said that the law is only talking about adjusting the changing times and giving protection to the rights of women living in live-in relations and children born with such relationships. Grover said that the provisions of the UCC related to registration of live -in relations will infiltrate personal life through monitoring and policing. Grover questioned the provision under which the information provided by the live -in couple at the time of compulsory registration will be given to the police immediately.
He said that the police would have the right to take appropriate action in violation cases but the Act has not defined appropriate action. Grover also questioned the justification of being asked by women under UCC whether she is ending the live-in relationship and whether she is pregnant. He said that this is a violation of his privacy. He said that instead of giving protection to women, such provisions can make their condition worse as the authorities may have harassment due to their personal details.
