In a significant affirmation of individual liberties, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the police to assess the threat perception faced by a couple in a live-in relationship and take appropriate action to protect their lives and liberty. The judgment reinforces that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to live with a person of one's choice, and the state must intervene when this right is threatened by private individuals.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Manjot Kaur and another individual, filed a criminal writ petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India seeking protection from private respondents (numbered 4 to 8) who were allegedly harassing them and interfering in their peaceful live-in relationship. Both petitioners are majors, as evidenced by their Aadhar Cards (Annexure P/1 and P/2), and there is no blood relationship between them.
Key Facts
- The petitioners are living together in a live-in relationship
- They have been receiving continuous threats from the private respondents
- A representation dated 22.06.2026 (Annexure P/3) was filed with the official respondents seeking protection
- The petitioners invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty
Procedural History
- 22.06.2026: Representation filed with the official respondents (Annexure P/3)
- 26.06.2026: Criminal Writ Petition (CRWP-7588-2026) filed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court
- 26.06.2026: Notice of motion issued to the official respondents
- 26.06.2026: Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought directions to the official respondents to:
- Protect their lives and liberty
- Restrain the private respondents from harassing them or interfering in their live-in relationship
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Article 21 of the Constitution obligates the state to protect individuals in a live-in relationship from threats posed by private parties, even when no criminal case has been registered.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment in Sonia Rani and another v. State of Punjab & Others (CRWP-12177-2022, decided on 23.12.2022), where a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court granted protection to a couple in a live-in relationship. The counsel argued that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 includes the right to live with a person of one's choice, and the state must intervene when this right is threatened.
For the Respondent
The Additional Advocate General accepted notice on behalf of the official respondents but did not present substantive counter-arguments in the judgment.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the protection of life and liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution, emanating from Article 21. It held that every person, especially a major, has the right to live their life with a person of their choice. The Court further noted that when it is prima facie satisfied that relatives or other individuals unhappy with the relationship could cause harm, it is obligated to pass necessary directions for protection.
The Court relied on the reasoning in Sonia Rani, which stated:
"13. In view of the same, it goes without saying that the protection of life and liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution of India as emanating out of Article 21. Every person, more so, a major, has right to live his/ her life with a person of his / her choice. Whenever this Court, prima-facie, is satisfied that on account of some relatives/ persons being unhappy with the relationship between the petitioners could cause harm to the life and liberty of the petitioners, then in such circumstances, the Courts are required to pass necessary directions for their protection."
"15. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and without commenting upon the legality of the relationship between the petitioners or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with a direction to respondent no.2 to consider the representation dated 20.12.2022 (Annexure P-3) and to assess the threat perception to the petitioners and after considering the same, respondent No.2 shall take appropriate action in accordance with law."
The Court clarified that its directions would not debar the police from taking appropriate legal action if any criminal case had been registered.
The Verdict
The Court disposed of the petition with the following directions:
- Respondent No. 2 (the police) is directed to consider the representation dated 22.06.2026 (Annexure P/3)
- The police must assess the threat perception to the petitioners
- After considering the threat perception, the police shall take appropriate action in accordance with the law
- The direction does not preclude the police from taking legal action if a criminal case has been registered
What This Means For Similar Cases
Protection Under Article 21 Extends to Live-in Relationships
- The judgment reinforces that Article 21 protects not only physical life but also the liberty to choose one's partner, including in live-in relationships
- Courts can intervene to protect individuals from threats posed by private parties, even in the absence of a registered criminal case
- Practitioners can cite this judgment to argue for state protection in cases where couples face harassment due to their relationship choices
Threat Assessment Is Mandatory
- The police are obligated to assess the threat perception when a representation is made, regardless of the nature of the relationship
- This sets a precedent for mandatory consideration of representations seeking protection under Article 21, ensuring that the state does not abdicate its responsibility to safeguard individual liberties
Limits of Judicial Intervention
- The Court explicitly refrained from commenting on the legality of the live-in relationship, focusing solely on the threat to life and liberty
- This underscores that protection under Article 21 is not contingent on the legality or social acceptance of the relationship but on the fundamental right to live without fear
- However, the Court clarified that its directions would not hinder the police from taking legal action if a criminal case is registered, ensuring that the state's investigative powers remain intact
