On Wednesday, the Rajasthan Human Rights Commission (HRC) issued an order and asked the state government and the Centre to prohibit the practice of live-in relationships. The bench also claimed that all the women who adopt the practice of live-in relationships are like "concubines".
Human Rights Commission of Rajasthan issues order stating "it is imperative to stop the practice of live-in relationships, and it is the responsibility of the state and Central government to prohibit it." pic.twitter.com/wgu1sX7CJ7— ANI (@ANI) September 4, 2019
According to reports, Justice Mahesh Chand Sharma and Justice Prakash Tantia passed an order and cited various Supreme Court decisions. They added,
It is the responsibility of the government and human rights organisations to protect women from the harms of live-in relationship through intensive awareness campaigns.
The bench mentioned that the government should bring a separate law for live-in relationships as it was the responsibility of the Centre and state governments to protect women from the rise in such trends.
Keeping a woman as a concubine is against her dignity because this word tantamount to character assassination. For a woman, life as a concubine is not right to life and such a woman cannot protect her fundamental rights.
They also added,
The law should specify eligibility of partners; how such relationships will be known to people at large; procedure of registration; and how these relationships can be ended after a mandatory counselling.
Reportedly, rights activist Kavita Srivastav said that they can challenge it in the Rajasthan High Court and called it an extremely retrograde judgment that needs to be condemned.
He is asking the government to make a law against live-in relationships and to challenge the 'in the nature of marriage' clause of the Domestic Violence Act.
Twitter too called out the supposed order.
Who made them moral hawaldars.— Abhi (@abeiscross1) September 4, 2019
And they say we live in a free democracy. The irony is it is forwarded by the "HUMAN RIGHTS" commission. What definition they are using is only know to the shrinking mentality of the commission. #HumanRights— Deepak Dhakad (@Mitron_56) September 4, 2019
This coming from a ‘Human Rights’ Commission is bizarre! What about the "fundamental" right to choose and live according to one’s will? The focus must be to empower live-in partners and not slam the concept. #justice #legalnews https://t.co/PWiKSAuAOa via @IndianExpress— Shweta Menon (@shwetamenon20) September 5, 2019
Every day you wake up in India to a brand new stupidity. But even in that league of stupidities this railing of a human rights body in Rajasthan against live-in relationships must rank really high. “Such animalistic lives are against the basic rights enshrined in constitution.” https://t.co/mL6q5KPwLJ— نجیو ورما Sanjeev Verma (@sanjeevve) September 5, 2019
What a silly state is Rajasthan! Human Rights Commision says Live-in relationships should be banned because women are treated like mistresses. Dafuq! No outrage from liberals and pseudo-feminists because the state is ruled by Congress 🤷https://t.co/Cexh5J4crx— Monica (@TrulyMonica) September 5, 2019
What new stupidity is this?— meghnad (@Memeghnad) September 5, 2019
(BTW, this order is by the same Mahesh Chandra Sharma who said in 2017 that peacocks get pregnant after swallowing tears.)https://t.co/jWa32YJcPD
extremely autocratic cheap order— NuclearFairies✨ (@FairiesNuclear) September 4, 2019
HRC rajasthan is against personal liberty
Edwina and nehrus live in relationship was legal but if someone other does it then its illegal
What right does the state have to prevent couples who want to live-in? This isn’t Taliban run Rajasthan right? Is INC now acting like Taliban?— Bala பாலா 🇺🇸🇮🇳 (@Bala8105) September 4, 2019
First please rename HRC of Rajasthan to "Khap Panchayat" 👍😉— Darshan Mondkar (@DaMoMusings) September 4, 2019
Justice Sharma had previously made headlines when he said that peacocks don't have sex and reproduce through tears.