Barring individuals in premarital relationships, individuals of different genders who are friends, colleagues, or cousins may also travel together and require Oyo’s services. The issue of privacy for young couples in India highlights a deep conflict between social norms and legal rights. Oyo announced that unmarried couples will no longer be allowed entry into its partner hotels. Hotels have been given the freedom to enforce this rule based on local sensitivities. The decision was taken due to requests from civil society groups and citizens who urged the company to adopt such a policy. Initially, this policy will apply only to hotels in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, but reports suggest that Oyo may extend its application to other cities as well. This is discrimination based on marital status. The legal view on privacy and relationships is the recognition of pre-marital relationships. In various judgments, the Supreme Court has recognized the right of individuals to enter into premarital relationships. The burning question, however, is whether those adversely affected by this policy can find legal remedies in the Constitution or otherwise.
Recently, Oyo announced that unmarried couples will no longer be allowed entry into its partner hotels. Payal Kapadia’s award-winning film All We Imagine As Light depicts the journey of a young couple, Anu and Shiaz, who struggle to find private space. While the characters are fictional, their problem is a reality faced by many young people in pre-marital relationships across India, where privacy is a rare commodity. The struggle for privacy is expected to get worse due to policies recently implemented by Oyo, a popular hotel aggregator. The issue of privacy for young couples in India highlights a deeper conflict between social norms and legal rights. Oyo announced that unmarried couples will no longer be allowed entry into its partner hotels. Hotels have been given the freedom to enforce this rule based on local sensitivities.
All couples will have to submit a “valid proof of relationship” at the time of check-in, which is the immediate reason for the transfer. Oyo explained that the decision was taken due to requests from civil society groups and citizens who urged the company to adopt such a policy. Initially, the policy will only apply to hotels in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, but reports suggest that Oyo may expand its application to other cities as well. This is discrimination on the basis of marital status. Beyond the practicalities of providing a ‘valid proof of relationship,’ it is clear that Oyo is encouraging partner hotels to discriminate against customers based on their marital status. However, the burning question is whether those adversely affected by this policy can find legal remedies in the Constitution or otherwise.
The legal perspective on privacy and relationships recognizes premarital relationships. In various judgments, the Supreme Court has recognized the right of individuals to enter into premarital relationships. In Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. (2020), the Court affirmed that Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right of individuals to choose their partner, ‘whether within or outside marriage.’ The Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) case recognized the right of all individuals to physical, emotional, mental, and sexual companionship. Other Supreme Court judgments have emphasized that the rights to privacy, dignity, and autonomy derived from Article 21 give people the freedom to engage in consensual, intimate, or sexual relations and to cohabit with their partner if they choose. For many unmarried couples, using hotel services is one way to exercise these rights. Except for persons in pre-marital relationships, persons of different genders who are friends, colleagues, or cousins may also travel together and may require Oyo’s services.
Enforceability of Fundamental Rights Under the constitutional scheme, the fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution are enforceable primarily against the State and its instrumentalities, and not against non-state actors. Citizens can seek constitutional remedies from the courts when the state violates their fundamental rights. However, these rights do not extend to cases where a private party interferes with their exercise. Constitutional rights are generally understood to be enforceable in a “vertical” manner (i.e., against the state) and not in a “horizontal” manner (i.e., between private individuals or entities). The Constitution contains three explicit provisions that break away from the traditional “vertical” model of rights: Article 15(2): Prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth in access to public places and services. Article 17: Prohibits untouchability. Article 23: Prohibits human trafficking and forced labor. In Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023), the Supreme Court held that rights under Article 21 can be enforced against private parties as well, thereby expanding the scope of rights horizontally. While Article 15(2) prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, caste, and other listed grounds, it does not explicitly cover marital status, leaving ambiguity in its applicability in cases such as Oyo’s policy. The implications of the Kaushal Kishore decision for enforcing Article 21 against private entities are unclear. The lack of consistent jurisprudence makes it uncertain whether unmarried individuals can claim rights under Article 21 in such cases.
Current laws provide limited protection, such as the rights extended to women regardless of marital status. However, a comprehensive anti-discrimination law is needed to protect individuals from discrimination based on marital status, sex, race, sexual orientation, or other characteristics. Apply to private transactions, including housing, employment, and commercial services. The ability to exercise constitutional rights depends on the willingness of private actors to create enabling conditions. Discrimination on characteristics such as marital status, religion, or gender identity affects not only access to hotel services but also housing, employment, and property ownership. Addressing this requires legislative and social change to ensure equality in the private and public sectors. Social norms are often set by the majority, and prioritizing them risks elevating the values of the majority while undermining the values of minority communities. The need for tolerance is important, as social norms can be rigid. Society must adopt greater tolerance, and legal ambiguities must be clarified.
The tyranny of the majority is often not as obvious in the private sphere. An action may not have social approval, but the Constitution gives us the right to do it. The law—in whatever form it takes—must protect this right.
