A lecture by a former high court chief justice evokes a sharp response from some law students associated with the People's Union for Civil Liberties. Is there light at the end of the tunnel?
—
AS interns at the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), we eagerly looked forward to Justice Prakash Chandra Tatia's lecture on legal career prospects at a local law college in Jaipur.
With his impressive background as the former Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court, we were expecting an enlightening session. However, what unfolded was unexpected.
Rather than delving into the anticipated legal insights and career guidance, Justice Tatia steered the discussion towards his radical opinions on social issues. He touched upon topics such as 'live-in relationships', which he controversially labelled as "social terrorism", and expressed his dissent with the current law of the land.
Not to mention this would not be the first instance of public expression of dissent towards live-in relationships by Justice Tatia. Justice Tatia has infamously published a 57-page report entailing how consensually living with another adult is infecting society one live-in relationship at a time, all the while being the Chairman of the Rajasthan Human Rights Commission!
“Rather than delving into the anticipated legal insights and career guidance, Justice Tatia steered the discussion towards his radical opinions on social issues.
We had hoped for a more open-minded discussion that embraced diverse viewpoints on these sensitive matters. As individuals concerned with social justice and progress, we could not help but question the appropriateness of his stance, given his influential position within the legal and social spheres.
In the session, he first called live-in relationships "social terrorism", without explaining this nomenclature or what was meant by terrorism in this context.
He then compared live-in relationships with the consumption of tobacco, stressing the carcinogenic properties of tobacco and how it pollutes the immediate environment to drive home his point.
He further stated that live-in relationships were worse than triple talaq. What was most disturbing was that he looked upon women in live-in relationships without any agency, only as victims, vulnerable, to be abandoned by their live-in partners. He also saw men only as promiscuous without any accountability, who used women and victimised them.
Justice Tatia has been known to make such commentary for a long time but with the new provisions on live-in relationships in the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) of Uttarakhand and the rapidly vitiating social climate in the country, these arguments can no longer be left alone.
What follows is a response to some of the arguments that were presented by Justice Tatia. We would like to emphasise that these arguments are being presented by us as not only interns at the PUCL and law students but primarily as concerned citizens.
As concerned citizens, we are interested in building a discourse upholding constitutional rights and building awareness among other fellow citizens.
In response to a pointed question as to why he considered live-in relationships as "social terrorism", the former judge said, "It gave men all the liberty that he could leave the woman at any point in time without telling her. When the man wants to get rid of the girl and the relationship, he could throw money at the girl and walk out."
“He touched upon topics such as 'live-in relationships', which he controversially labelled as "social terrorism", and expressed his dissent with the current law of the land.
He added, "The man is with you today and goes with another woman the next day and another woman later, do you want that? He leaves the woman pregnant or abandons her with a child, do you agree with that?"
As a judge, he had witnessed several cases where women in live-in relationships faced serious issues, he asserted.
While his concern is not unfounded, he fails to acknowledge the legal protections provided to women under various laws.
Despite the concerns raised by some individuals, there are legal protections provided to women in live-in relationships under various laws; for example, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, of 2005, where live-in relationships in the nature of marriage provide women with the right to claim all rights including protection from the State, maintenance and right to residence.
Moreover, under Article 19 of the Constitution, consenting adults have the right to live together without interference, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that if two consenting adults choose to live together, it does not amount to any offence.
These statements derive from the constitutional idea that we are born equal and free, and that no person can be deprived of their life and personal liberty.
Therefore, it is crucial to acknowledge that live-in relationships by no standard can be equated to 'social terrorism', since respecting the woman's agency, legal safeguards have been put in place to protect their interests.
As per the retired judge, both practices, live-in relationships and consuming tobacco, were equally harmful to our society. However, he added that live-in relationships were worse than tobacco. Although both were legal, consuming tobacco and live-in relationships served zero utility to any society, as per the judge.
Can a health hazard such as tobacco be equated to a relationship between two consenting adults to be together?
“While his concern is not unfounded, he fails to acknowledge the legal protections provided to women under various laws.
Live-in relationships are also about responsibility between partners. We would like to ask Justice Tatia whether he was seeing tobacco as the male or the female partner in the relationship causing harm to either or if was he trying to equate live-in relationships to tobacco addiction.
Whatever may have been his argument, which he refused to explain despite being asked to do so, it seems bizarre that a former senior member of the judiciary could pack his untenable personal ideas related to deterrence to a group of budding lawyers.
Justice Tatia also said that live-in relationships are three times worse than triple talaq (which would make them nine times worse than a simple talaq, perhaps).
But he failed to acknowledge that there is consent in a live-in relationship, while in triple talaq a man can leave his wife without her consent.
He believes that men in live-in relationships abandon women. We would like to argue that as adults, women and men both have the right to say yes or no to each other in a relationship which should be equally respected, similarly, partners could separate from within a live-in relationship which also needs to be respected, not just by both the partners but also by their parents and the society.
What needs to be discussed is how laws relating to personal rights can be made more equal and in favour of the female live-in partner, acknowledging that in our patriarchal society separation could leave the woman [and children] worse off than the male partner.
No way do we see registration of live-in relationships as the panacea to the above, which the Uttarakhand UCC has made mandatory.
“Justice Tatia's arguments cast women solely as victims, stripping them of agency and autonomy.
Justice Tatia's arguments cast women solely as victims, stripping them of agency and autonomy. It is a troubling narrative that infantilises women and perpetuates the notion of women being dependent on men and having zero authority of their own.
Moreover, it unfairly paints men as inherently promiscuous and devoid of accountability. It is undeniably essential to hold both parties accountable for their actions rather than perpetuating stereotypes.
This disregard for the diverse realities of live-in relationships and the imposition of personal beliefs in the judiciary is deeply concerning. It sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the responsibility of legal professionals to uphold the principles of justice and equality.
Also read: National consultation to evolve the category of 'single women' and make it more inclusive concludes
We must hold such figures accountable and work towards a society where individual choices are respected, not labelled as 'terror'. Individuals have the right to make their own choices and both the law and law enforcement agencies must aim at protecting those choices.
Let us dismantle this narrative of hate and build a society that celebrates diversity. An equal, just, fair, fraternal and free society can only happen if laws are upheld, and the Constitution is our conscience keeper.
In an astonishing turn of events, Justice Prakash Tatia, a revered figure in the legal domain, delivered a statement that sent shockwaves through the room: "I am against the law," when he was asked why law and morality were separated, assuming that our Indian law was bereft of morality.
Even before we could ask him to explain, the meeting was declared over. We would clearly like to disagree with him as the Indian Constitution is the framework of morality woven into all our laws.
“Individuals have the right to make their own choices and both the law and law enforcement agencies must aim at protecting those choices.
Justice Tatia did not explain how we should engage critically with the complexities of our changing times, instead his unexplained assertion towards the end, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the legal system itself, almost seemed like an attempt to erode our confidence in the principles of law that we have been taught and associate ourselves with.
With due respect we like to agree to disagree with Justice Tatia (and the larger segment that makes such arguments and claims) and would urge him as bearers of the future, to adhere to human rights principles in order to contribute towards constructive change and a fairer and just society.
Presented by the interns at the People's Union for Civil Liberties:
The views expressed are personal and do not reflect the views of The Leaflet.