The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution extends to major individuals in live-in relationships, even when facing threats from family members. This judgment underscores that personal autonomy in choosing a partner - whether through marriage or cohabitation - is constitutionally protected and cannot be overridden by societal disapproval or familial coercion.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, two adult individuals, are engaged in a live-in relationship against the wishes of their respective families, who are named as private respondents. Petitioner No. 2 is legally married to Respondent No. 5 but has chosen to live with Petitioner No. 1. The petitioners allege that their family members have exerted pressure, made threats, and failed to respect their personal autonomy. They fear for their physical safety and liberty due to the perceived influence and aggressive conduct of their relatives.
Key Facts
- Petitioner No. 1 is a major adult, as evidenced by Aadhaar Card (Annexure P-1)
- Petitioner No. 2 is a major adult, as evidenced by Aadhaar Card (Annexure P-2)
- Petitioner No. 2 is legally married to Respondent No. 5 but has been living with Petitioner No. 1 in a live-in arrangement
- On 03.04.2026, the petitioners submitted a written representation (Annexure P-3) to the Superintendent of Police, Jind, seeking protection
- No criminal complaint or FIR has been filed against the petitioners as of the date of the judgment
- The petitioners have not sought dissolution of Petitioner No. 2’s existing marriage
Procedural History
- 03.04.2026: Representation submitted to Superintendent of Police, Jind, seeking protection
- CRWP-3899-2026(O&M): Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution on an unspecified date prior to 06.04.2026
- 06.04.2026: Hearing before Justice Mandeep Pannu; notice issued to official respondents only
- 06.04.2026: Judgment delivered
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the State authorities, particularly the Superintendent of Police, Jind, to provide immediate and effective protection to their lives and liberty from threats posed by their family members.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution protects major individuals in a live-in relationship from threats by family members, even when one party is already married, and whether such protection can be granted without adjudicating the legality of the relationship.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners’ counsel relied on two precedents from the same High Court: Amandeep Kaur & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (02.11.2021) and Pardeep Singh and Another v. State of Haryana and Others (18.05.2021). In both cases, the Court had granted protection to couples in live-in relationships despite familial opposition. The counsel argued that the petitioners, being adults, have the fundamental right to choose their life partners and live together without fear of harassment. The representation dated 03.04.2026 demonstrated a clear apprehension of harm, triggering the State’s duty under Article 21 to safeguard their liberty.
For the Respondent
The Additional Advocate General, Haryana, accepted notice on behalf of the official respondents and did not oppose the petition. He acknowledged the binding precedent in Pardeep Singh and conceded that the State has a constitutional obligation to protect citizens in live-in relationships from threats by private parties.
The Court's Analysis
The Court extensively relied on its own earlier decision in Pardeep Singh v. State of Haryana, wherein it had held that the right to choose a partner - whether through marriage or live-in relationship - is an intrinsic part of personal liberty under Article 21. The Court emphasized that constitutional rights are not contingent upon social acceptance or familial approval.
"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 the notion that the legality of the relationship must be established before protection is granted. It clarified that the State’s duty to protect life and liberty arises from the mere existence of a credible threat, irrespective of the nature of the relationship. The Court noted that social evolution, particularly through education and urbanization, has led to greater acceptance of live-in relationships, even in smaller towns and villages.
The Court further distinguished between protection from private threats and immunity from criminal liability. It explicitly stated that the order does not validate the relationship under any personal law or condone any potential violation of statutory provisions such as Section 494 IPC (bigamy). The protection granted is strictly limited to safeguarding life and liberty from extrajudicial threats.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Jind, to consider the representation dated 03.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) and take appropriate steps to ensure no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners. The order is expressly limited to protection from threats by private respondents and does not grant immunity from criminal proceedings if either petitioner is found to have committed a cognizable offence. The petition was disposed of with immediate effect.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Protection Is Not Dependent on Marital Status
- Practitioners may now invoke Article 21 to seek police protection for individuals in live-in relationships, even if one party is legally married
- The existence of a prior marriage does not disqualify a person from claiming protection from familial threats
- Courts will assess threat perception based on credible representations, not moral or legal validity of the relationship
State Duty Arises from Threat, Not Relationship Type
- Police authorities must act on representations alleging threats to life or liberty, regardless of whether the relationship is formalized
- Failure to act may constitute a violation of the State’s positive obligation under Article 21 as interpreted in Pardeep Singh and now reaffirmed
- Protection orders under Article 226 are interim and preventive; they do not preclude subsequent criminal investigation
No Blanket Approval of Relationships
- This judgment does not legalize bigamy or override personal laws
- Petitioners remain subject to prosecution under Section 494 IPC if proven to have contracted a second marriage while the first subsists
- Legal counsel must advise clients that protection ≠ immunity; the two are distinct legal categories
