The Punjab and Haryana High Court has unequivocally affirmed that major adults in live-in relationships are entitled to the same constitutional protection of life and liberty as any other citizen, regardless of marital status or societal disapproval. This ruling reinforces the primacy of personal autonomy under Article 21 and sets a critical precedent for the protection of unconventional relationships against familial coercion.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Sukhdev Singh and another woman, are engaged in a live-in relationship despite both being legally bound to other spouses. Petitioner No. 1 is a divorcee, while Petitioner No. 2’s divorce petition remains pending. They have chosen to cohabit voluntarily and have submitted a formal representation to the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, seeking protection from threats by their respective family members, who oppose the relationship.
Procedural History
- 26.02.2026: Petitioners submitted a written representation to the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, seeking protection.
- No substantive response: Authorities failed to provide any protective measures despite the expressed threat perception.
- 2026: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking mandamus to compel state protection.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to safeguard their lives and liberty from threats by family members, citing the precedent set in Pardeep Singh v. State of Haryana and Amandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees protection of life and liberty to adults in live-in relationships, even when one or both parties are not legally free to marry, and whether such protection can be denied on grounds of social disapproval or marital status.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on two prior decisions of the same High Court: Pardeep Singh v. State of Haryana and Amandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab. They argued that the right to choose a partner and live with them is an intrinsic part of personal liberty under Article 21, and that the state has a positive obligation to protect individuals from threats by private actors, especially when the threat stems from familial opposition. They emphasized that the petitioners are major adults with valid Aadhaar cards, and that their relationship does not constitute any criminal offense under existing law.
For the Respondent
The State, through the Additional Advocate General, accepted notice but did not contest the legal principles invoked. No substantive counter-arguments were presented challenging the petitioners’ entitlement to protection under Article 21.
The Court's Analysis
The Court anchored its reasoning in the foundational principles of personal autonomy and equal protection under law. It explicitly adopted the reasoning from Pardeep Singh, emphasizing that the Constitution does not distinguish between married couples and those in live-in relationships when it comes to the protection of life and liberty.
"The Constitution of India is the Supreme Law of the land. Right to life and liberty is enshrined therein and is treated as a basic feature. The said right includes the right of an individual to full development of his/her potential in accordance with his/her choice and wish and for such purpose, he/she is entitled to choose a partner of his/her choice."
The Court rejected any implicit hierarchy of relationships based on marital formalities. It held that social disapproval, however prevalent, cannot override constitutional rights. The Court noted that the rise of live-in relationships in urban and rural areas alike reflects evolving social norms, and that the law must keep pace with such changes.
Crucially, the Court clarified that its order does not validate the legality of the relationship under marriage laws, nor does it immunize the petitioners from prosecution if they are found to have committed any cognizable offense. The protection granted is strictly limited to safeguarding their physical safety and liberty from private threats.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that Article 21 entitles major adults in live-in relationships to protection from threats by family members, irrespective of their marital status. The Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, was directed to consider the representation dated 26.02.2026 and take necessary steps to ensure the petitioners’ safety.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Constitutional Protection Is Not Conditional on Marriage
- Practitioners must now argue that Article 21 protection extends to all major adults in consensual cohabitation, regardless of whether they are legally free to marry.
- Police and district authorities cannot refuse protection on grounds of "moral" or "social" objections to live-in relationships.
- Representation under Article 226 is a viable remedy when state inaction exposes individuals to threats from private actors.
State’s Duty Is Proactive, Not Reactive
- Authorities must assess threat perception objectively upon receipt of representation, not wait for violence to occur.
- Failure to act may constitute a violation of the state’s positive obligation under Article 21, opening the door to contempt proceedings or writs for non-compliance.
- Police stations should be trained to recognize live-in couples as entitled to protection under the same framework as inter-faith or inter-caste couples.
No Legal Sanction, But Full Safety Guarantee
- This judgment does not legalize bigamy or void marriages; it only ensures physical safety.
- Practitioners must advise clients that while protection is guaranteed, criminal liability for existing marriages remains unaffected.
- Any attempt to use this order to evade matrimonial proceedings will not be upheld.
