Forbidden, Policed, And Criminalised Love: Queer Intimacies, Live-In Relationships, Honour, Surveillance, And State Control

Abstract

The judicial conception of intimate autonomy and the constitutional understanding of “family” under Article 21 have undergone a remarkable transformation from a narrow, heteronormative understanding of marriage to queer relationships, live-in partnerships and “chosen families” outside the realm of biological or marital relations. This reflects a widening judicial awareness that decisional autonomy, dignity, and the right to choose an intimate partner merit the same constitutional protection as formal marriage. This shift has been bolstered by legislation such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which covers relationships “like marriage” and not only solemnized unions and yet this progress is in tension with an expanding architecture of control: the notice-and-objection procedure under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, anti-conversion laws, mandatory live-in relationship registries under the Uniform Civil Codes of 2025–26, and the extra-legal violence of Khap Panchayats. Together, these produce a “temporal trap” in secular marriage law and a “carceral turn” in cohabitation regulation, exposing couples to surveillance and harassment precisely where the law promises refuge. The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, also highlights the contradictory nature of the state’s position towards non-conforming identities. While there have been judicial advances, there remains a real gap between constitutional principle and statutory/administrative practice. To achieve true reform, it is necessary to dismantle surveillance-based regimes of registration, enact a dedicated federal law against honour-based crimes, and reform the publication requirements of the Special Marriage Act, to protect the dignity, privacy and autonomy of those whose intimate choices fall outside majoritarian norms.