The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to shield a live-in relationship involving a minor, reinforcing that statutory protections for children override personal autonomy claims. This judgment clarifies the limits of judicial intervention in relationships where child welfare laws are engaged.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Sandeep Singh (18 years) and AXXX (17 years and 5 months), are in a live-in relationship and fear threats to their life and liberty from family members of the female petitioner. They sought writ relief under Article 226, requesting police protection from private respondents who oppose their relationship.
Procedural History
- The petitioners submitted a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur, on 27.02.2026, seeking protection.
- No action was taken by the police authorities.
- The petition was filed in the High Court on 10.03.2026, urging judicial intervention to ensure safety.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the State to provide police protection and ensure their safety, arguing that their right to life and liberty under Article 21 was under imminent threat.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Article 21 of the Constitution entitles a couple to judicial protection in a live-in relationship when one partner is a minor, despite multiple statutes criminalizing sexual activity and marriage with children.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners’ counsel argued that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to choose one’s partner, even outside marriage. They cited D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma to assert that live-in relationships are legally recognized if they meet certain conditions. They contended that the threat from family members justified immediate protective intervention by the Court.
For the Respondent
The Additional Advocate General for Punjab argued that the female petitioner, being below 18, is a child under the law. Any sexual or intimate relationship with her constitutes statutory rape under the POCSO Act, and permitting judicial protection would undermine the legislative intent behind the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Independent Thought v. Union of India. The State emphasized its parens patriae duty to protect minors from exploitation, even if framed as consensual.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged that live-in relationships have been recognized by the Supreme Court as part of personal autonomy under Article 21, but only when both parties are of legal age to marry. It emphasized that the age of consent in India is uniformly 18 years, irrespective of marital status, as affirmed in Independent Thought v. Union of India. The Court held that the POCSO Act, Juvenile Justice Act, and Prohibition of Child Marriage Act are secular, welfare-oriented statutes designed to protect children from exploitation, and they override any claim of personal choice.
"These special laws are secular, welfare-centric, and override personal laws. They reflect the compelling state interest in protecting children, and legislative intent to criminalize child marriage and sexual acts with minors, even under the guise of marriage."
The Court rejected the notion that protection under Article 21 could extend to shielding an illegal act. It distinguished between protecting individuals from unlawful violence and legitimizing conduct that violates child protection statutes. The Court concluded that granting protection in such circumstances would effectively condone statutory rape and defeat the purpose of child-centric laws.
Instead of dismissing the petition outright, the Court adopted a protective, procedural approach by directing the matter to the Child Welfare Committee under the Juvenile Justice Act, ensuring the minor’s safety, well-being, and best interests are assessed by statutory authorities.
The Verdict
The petitioners’ request for direct police protection was denied. The Court held that Article 21 cannot be invoked to protect a live-in relationship involving a minor, as it conflicts with statutory child protection laws. The Court directed the minor to be produced before the Child Welfare Committee for a comprehensive assessment and ordered police to ensure physical safety pending adjudication.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Child Welfare Overrides Personal Autonomy Claims
- Practitioners must recognize that claims under Article 21 for protection in relationships involving minors will be rejected if they conflict with POCSO, JJ Act, or Child Marriage Act.
- Courts will not entertain writ petitions seeking to shield relationships that constitute statutory rape, even if framed as consensual.
Mandatory Referral to Child Welfare Committee
- In all cases involving minors in live-in relationships, courts must direct the child to the Child Welfare Committee under Section 36 of the JJ Act.
- Police must ensure the minor’s physical safety but cannot be directed to protect the relationship itself.
- Failure to comply with the Court’s direction to produce the minor before the Committee may attract contempt proceedings.
Police Duty Is Limited to Safety, Not Endorsement
- Law enforcement must act to prevent physical harm to petitioners but must not facilitate or legitimize unlawful relationships.
- If the male partner is found to have engaged in sexual activity with the minor, he remains liable for prosecution under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, regardless of the Court’s protective directions.
