The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution extends unconditionally to adults in live-in relationships, irrespective of marital status. This judgment eliminates the legal fiction that formal marriage is a prerequisite for state protection against familial threats, reinforcing individual autonomy as a core constitutional value.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Mahak Saifi and another, are adult individuals engaged in a live-in relationship. Their respective family members oppose this relationship and have allegedly threatened their safety and liberty. The petitioners, fearing violence or coercion, submitted representations dated 13.04.2026 to the Superintendent of Police, District Hisar, seeking police protection. They allege that despite these formal requests, no meaningful action has been taken due to the perceived influence of their families within local law enforcement circles.
Key Facts
- Both petitioners are above the age of majority, as evidenced by birth certificates (Annexures P-1 and P-2)
- They have been residing together in a consensual, non-coercive live-in relationship
- Representations dated 13.04.2026 (Annexures P-4 and P-5) were submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Hisar
- No response or protective measures were initiated by the authorities
- The petitioners express credible apprehension of harm from family members
- No criminal complaint or FIR has been filed against the petitioners
- No allegations of coercion, underage involvement, or fraud have been raised
Procedural History
- 13.04.2026: Petitioners submitted formal representations to Superintendent of Police, District Hisar
- 20.04.2026: Writ Petition CRWP-4532-2026(O&M) filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court
- 20.04.2026: Court issued notice only to official respondents (State of Haryana and others)
- 20.04.2026: Additional Advocate General and Assistant Advocate General accepted notice on behalf of the State
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the State and police authorities to:
- Provide immediate and effective protection to their lives and liberty
- Take preventive steps against threats from family members
- Ensure no harm is caused due to their choice of relationship
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution entitles adults in a consensual live-in relationship to state protection against threats from family members, even in the absence of a formal marriage.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on two binding precedents of the same High Court: Pardeep Singh v. State of Haryana and Rajwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab. He argued that the Constitution guarantees the freedom to choose one’s partner and form intimate relationships without state interference or societal coercion. He emphasized that the petitioners are adults, capable of informed consent, and that their fear of harm is not speculative but grounded in credible representations. He contended that denying protection on the basis of marital status would violate the principle of equality under Article 14 and the dignity-based interpretation of Article 21.
For the Respondent
The State, through the Additional Advocate General, accepted notice but did not contest the legal principle. No substantive counter-arguments were presented. The State did not dispute the petitioners’ age, consent, or the veracity of their apprehensions. The Court noted the absence of any opposition to the grant of protection.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a doctrinal review of its own prior decisions in Pardeep Singh v. State of Haryana and Rajwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab. In Pardeep Singh, the Court had held that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to choose a partner and to live in a relationship, whether formalized by marriage or not. The Court observed:
"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 further noted that social acceptance of live-in relationships is growing, and legal protection must not lag behind evolving societal norms. In Rajwinder Kaur, the Division Bench had explicitly held that the State’s obligation to protect life and liberty does not depend on the validation of marriage. The Court stated:
"We have no reason to doubt that the fundamental right to life and liberty is so sacrosanct and stands at such a high pedestal that it must be protected even in the absence of an incident like solemnization of a valid marriage between the parties."
The Court rejected any implicit requirement that marriage be a precondition for protection. It emphasized that the State’s duty to protect is triggered by the threat to life or liberty, not by the legal status of the relationship. The Court clarified that while protection is mandated, it does not constitute judicial approval of the relationship’s legality under personal laws or criminal statutes.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Court directed the Superintendent of Police, District Hisar, to consider the representations dated 13.04.2026 (Annexures P-4 and P-5) and take appropriate steps to ensure no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners. The Court clarified that this protection is contingent on the petitioners having attained majority, as proven by Annexures P-1 and P-2. The order does not grant immunity from criminal proceedings if the petitioners are found to have committed any cognizable offence. The petition was disposed of with immediate effect.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Protection Is Triggered by Threat, Not Marital Status
- Practitioners must now argue that any adult couple in a consensual live-in relationship facing threats from family members is entitled to immediate police protection under Article 21
- No proof of marriage, cohabitation duration, or social acceptance is required to invoke this right
- Police inaction based on moral disapproval or family pressure is legally untenable
State Must Act Proactively, Not Reactively
- Representation to police is sufficient trigger for protective duty; no FIR or complaint is necessary
- Authorities must conduct threat assessment and deploy preventive measures, not wait for violence to occur
- Failure to act may expose officials to contempt proceedings or liability under Pardeep Singh and Rajwinder Kaur
Judicial Non-Endorsement Does Not Equal Non-Protection
- Courts will not validate or invalidate the relationship under personal laws
- Protection is a constitutional safeguard, not a marital sanction
- Petitioners remain subject to criminal law if they commit offences - protection does not imply immunity
