In this article, Shrey Lodha, of National Law University Odisha discusses whether Hotels can stop unmarried couples from booking a room, even if the latter have authentic and required identity proofs or not. 

Can they? Or a more pertinent question to be asked is that “should they”, considering the kind of pseudo-liberal society that Indian unmarried couples are surrounded by? Is there any legal provision underpinning this act of some hoteliers of denying booking of any room for unmarried couples?

Let’s dive into the nitty-gritty of these questions by considering prevailing practices going on in the country.

Is there any legal provision for such denial?

As per the officials of Hotel Association of India, there exists no such law which bars the unmarried couples from getting a room booked in any hotel pan India. However, it has been observed umpteen number of times that the unmarried couples have gone to the extent of pleading to the hoteliers for providing a room, which in reality, is their fundamental right of freedom of movement provided under Article 19(1)(d) of the Indian Constitution.

In a country like India, where its apex court has time and again subscribed to the progressive and modern approach of delivering justice, its judgement’s authority has been unequivocally not followed under the cloak of discretion and morality. Reformative decisions like that of validating live-in relationships and pre-marital sex still play a very dormant role in terms of its applicability.

Is it the abject fear of the society that compels the hoteliers to do so?

It is a well-known fact that behaviour of a person or an institution has to be socially guided and acceptable. Society, since the time immemorial, has played an influential role in the rise and fall of traditions, cultures and conventions. The perception of the society towards living of unmarried couples together is that of contempt and disgust. Till date, none has been successful in explaining as to why is it inappropriate for the unmarried couples to live together but the blind-folded followers of this norm are increasing every day in numbers.

Societal refutation of allowing unmarried couples to live together has been pervasive in nature with its extension into the hotel industry.

Audacity would mean tarnished reputation

Non-conformity to societal norms and conditions by some courageous youth has always compelled these recipients to either leave their clan or their existence. The audacity to go against the societal perception of upholding unmarried couples’ choice of living together would not only follow daunting repercussions of abolishment but also a tarnished reputation which the hoteliers are not ready to face.

Is there no alternative for the unmarried couples to book a room in a hotel?

The God’s Plan of throwing every problem along with a solution, though it takes time to find the latter sometimes, has been a wonderful blessing. Most recently, startups like StayUncle, LuvStay, OYO Rooms, Cleartrip, MakeMyTrip, etc., have started to provide options of the hotels which are couple friendly which include married as well as unmarried couples. The startup, StayUncle, as a result of robust polarization of ideologies condemning the idea of unmarried couple living together, had started a campaign “couples need a room, not a judgement” which had gone viral and as a result, unmarried couples could groove into the pleasant and safe environment of having some privacy.

In addition, an unmarried couple is not required to provide multifarious identification proofs for booking a room in a hotel through these platforms.

The unmarried couple is required to provide a valid ID proof to avail a room in a hotel. Valid identity proof can be an Aadhar card, Driving License, Passport, PAN Card, etc. Both, the man and the woman, are required to provide the hotel with their valid identity proof. Nevertheless, an unmarried couple doesn’t need to worry about their identity proof’s misuse as the hotels are more interested in getting business and least interested in creating bad publicity.

Dichotomy involved

It is pertinent to note that though the aforementioned platforms provide a hassle-free accessibility in booking a hotel room for an unmarried couple, then too, they place a caveat warding off any liability involved upon rejection of admission into the hotel of an unmarried couple.

Is it an offence if an unmarried couple books a room in a hotel?

Your reflex to this question shall always be the same as when people ask you, is it an offence to stand for the national anthem during the movie. No, it is not an offence for an unmarried couple either to book a room in a hotel or to stay for two nights and three days in a hotel.

Legal rights vested with an unmarried couple

• If the police officials barge into your hotel room in the middle of night and harass you by saying that they will charge you with “indecent public behaviour” or “abduction of girl”, then, just have a firm stance and consistently reiterate the fact that it is not an offence under any of the said charges. Rather, the police officials would be penalized for the act of violating the right to privacy under sections 166 and 166A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• It is legal for two consenting adults to do whatever they want, lawful, inside the closed walls.
• If videotaping or photographing is a means subscribed by anyone then it is a blatant intrusion upon your privacy and you can run charges of its violation on the person so does it. If a police official begins to use criminal force against women then that police official can be booked under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• If the parental pressure is used as a mean to extort money from you or make you subject to sermons involved during moral policing, then, make sure that your parents are well-aware or at least ar in consonance with your stance.
• Also, it is pertinent to note that if a police official has an intention of arresting you under the cloak of aforementioned charges then he is bound to inform your relative of the place of arrest as prescribed under section 41B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In addition to this, under section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the person so arrested has to be given proper reasons for the arrest.

What can the couple do if denied a room?

Denial of services, in the form of refusing to provide any room, are at the possibility of occurring at 2 different stages. The first one being that the hoteliers have denied booking a room for unmarried couples wherein the payment is preceded by booking. In this situation, an unmarried couple or as a matter of fact, a couple or not, has no legal right violated since, the hotelier’s vest within themselves the right of admission to the hotel to guests. Depending upon their hotel policy and at their discretion, the hoteliers can deny a room at the pre-payment stage.

However, in the post-payment stage, i.e., when an unmarried couple has pre-booked a hotel room for which payment has been already advanced to the respective hotel authorities through OYO Rooms, MakeMyTrip or any other online booking portals, then, in that case, the hoteliers cannot deny such services. For the reason that past consideration has been given to the hoteliers in the form of advance payment for the services to be availed in future which are to be provided by the hotel authorities amongst one of which is availability of confirmed room. In such a case of violation of legal sanctity, the unmarried couple being subjected to lack of services can approach the consumer court, depending upon the amount of payment advanced, for seeking redressal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   

Is societal determination of a norm higher in the hierarchy than the progressive Supreme Court?

The judicial pronouncement of the Supreme Court decisions has changed umpteen times for adapting to progressive and modern approach leave alone its judicial reliability. With changing times the societal ideologies shall shift from rigid dogmas to flexible convictions. However, the police raids in Mumbai charging thirteen unmarried couples of “indecent public behaviour” under section 110 of the Bombay Police Act, and also booked under section 7 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956, for staying together in a hotel room, kicking out teenage couples off the bus in Kolkata are all true incidents which explicitly show signs of a civilization trapped in the roots of non-cohesive and liberally-backwards culture.

Ground-breaking judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Justice KS Puttuswamy (retd.) vs Union of India WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 494 OF 2012 with respect to live-in relationships, premarital sex and right to privacy clearly highlight that the faith of the citizens of the country on judiciary, which aims for serving justice, would be upheld and would not be stabbed by following radical ideologies which are the ones expected by the ideologically-backwards society. Notwithstanding anything of this sort, the moral policing and the societal refutation have always been a casting spell of morality on unmarried couples’ choice to live together.  

Privacy is the constitutional core of human dignity

In the most recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein, a constitutional bench of reverential judges pronounced that right to privacy is an inalienable part and parcel of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Considering various questions relating to the decriminalisation of homosexuality, the validity of premarital sex and other issues related to privacy, the Supreme Court upheld the privacy of a human as the core of his existence to live with dignity.

However, the act of refusing unmarried couples the right to book a room in a hotel on the behest of societal pressure and dogma is a blatant violation of the fundamental right of right to privacy incorporated under Part III of the Indian Constitution which guarantees various fundamental rights to the citizens of the country.

Moral policing: A contradiction to the right to privacy

Mumbai’s raid by the police officials in the hotel room of unmarried couples, Kolkata’s trial-by-society of the teenage couple standing close to each other are the examples which explicitly illustrate the state of increased moral policing is a corollary of violation of the right to privacy. If the executive and the society have taken up the job of determining who should have an intimate relationship with whom and at what age and breach of the same shall attract what punishments, then, don’t you think that the role of the judiciary and that of human emotions shall be completely done away with?

Despite pictorial representation of a true incident, in the movie Masaan, where a boy commits suicide due to being made subject to moral policing and public shaming by certain police officials who barged into his privacy in presence of his female companion, still, a number of 21st century Indian society pupils subscribe to the ideology of radical morality.

Conclusion

If two consenting adults want to live together, irrespective of their marital status, should that amount to an offence? If the mere act of living with a person, married or unmarried; of the same sex or opposite sex, for whom one has emotions to being made an offence? Certainly not. If radical morality or pseudo-liberality begins to encroach upon the emotions of the people, then, believe you me, all will one day be mechanised to follow the whims and wishes of those who portray themselves as guardian of decency.