The Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed that adult individuals in consensual relationships are entitled to state protection against threats from family members, reinforcing the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty under Article 21. This judgment clarifies the duty of law enforcement to act on credible representations of threat, without prejudging the legal validity of the marriage.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, two adult individuals who have attained the age of majority, married each other against the wishes of their respective families. Following their marriage, they faced persistent threats and intimidation from family members, prompting them to seek protection from the state. They submitted a formal representation dated 31.03.2026 to the Superintendent of Police, Yamunanagar, requesting intervention to safeguard their life and liberty.
Key Facts
- The petitioners are both above the age of 18, as evidenced by their Aadhaar cards (Annexures P-1 and P-3)
- They solemnized their marriage on an undisclosed date, with a Marriage Certificate (Annexure P-6) and photographs (Annexure P-5) submitted as proof
- The representation dated 31.03.2026 (Annexure P-7) detailed threats of physical harm and social ostracization
- No FIR or criminal complaint has been registered against the petitioners as of the date of the petition
- The petitioners expressed fear of violence due to the alleged influence and clout of their family members
Procedural History
- 31.03.2026: Representation submitted to Superintendent of Police, Yamunanagar
- 01.04.2026: Writ petition filed under Article 226 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court
- 01.04.2026: Court heard arguments and issued directions on the same day
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to provide immediate protection from threats by family members, ensure their safety, and prevent any unlawful interference with their personal liberty.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the state, through its law enforcement agencies, has a constitutional obligation to protect the life and liberty of adult individuals who have entered into a consensual marriage against familial opposition, upon receipt of a credible representation of threat.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
Learned counsel argued that the petitioners, having attained majority, are entitled to exercise their fundamental right to choose a life partner under Article 21. The refusal of police to act on their representation amounted to a failure of the state’s duty to protect life and liberty. Reliance was placed on Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. to establish that familial opposition cannot override the autonomy of adult individuals.
For the Respondent
The Additional Advocate General accepted notice and did not oppose the petition. He acknowledged the petitioners’ age and the existence of the representation, and conceded that the police must assess the threat perception and take appropriate steps under existing protocols.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that the petitioners have established their majority through documentary evidence, and their marriage, while not yet subject to judicial validation, is not per se illegal. The Court held that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity and freedom from fear, particularly when threats are credible and documented.
"The petitioners have crossed the age of majority as seen from the documents placed on record... This would not ipso facto amount to granting any seal of approval on the legality of their marriage which essentially would come in the domain of the concerned Matrimonial Courts."
The Court clarified that its order is not a validation of the marriage’s legal status, nor does it grant immunity from criminal liability. The duty of the police is limited to threat assessment and preventive protection, not adjudication of marital validity. The Court rejected any notion that adult couples in love marriages must first obtain court approval before seeking police protection.
The Court further noted that the state’s obligation under Article 21 is proactive when credible threats are brought to its notice, and inaction in such circumstances may amount to a violation of constitutional rights.
The Verdict
The petition was disposed of with directions. The Superintendent of Police, Yamunanagar, is directed to consider the representation dated 31.03.2026 regarding threat perception and take appropriate steps to ensure no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners. The order is effective immediately. Pending applications are disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Police Must Act on Threat Reports, Not Wait for FIRs
- Law enforcement cannot delay action merely because no FIR has been filed
- A written representation detailing credible threats triggers a constitutional duty to assess and respond
- Failure to act may expose authorities to liability under Article 21
Majority Age Is Sufficient for Protection - No Court Approval Required
- Adult individuals (18+) are entitled to state protection regardless of whether their marriage is legally registered or challenged
- Police protection is not contingent on prior judicial validation of the relationship
- This removes a common barrier faced by couples in inter-caste or inter-faith marriages seeking safety
Protection Is Not Immunity - Criminal Liability Remains
- This order does not prevent arrest or prosecution if the petitioners are found to have committed a cognizable offence
- The judgment explicitly excludes protection from criminal proceedings under IPC or other statutes
- Practitioners must advise clients that safety measures and legal accountability are distinct
