The Punjab and Haryana High Court has unequivocally affirmed that individuals in live-in relationships are entitled to the same constitutional protection under Article 21 as married couples, rejecting any legal requirement for formal marriage as a precondition for state intervention against familial threats. This ruling reinforces the primacy of personal autonomy and dignity in intimate relationships, aligning judicial practice with evolving social realities.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Gurpreet Singh and another, both major individuals aged 19 and 18 respectively, are in a live-in relationship. Their families oppose the relationship and have issued threats to their life and liberty. Fearing violence, the petitioners approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 seeking immediate protective measures from state authorities.
Procedural History
- The petition was filed on 26 February 2026, accompanied by Aadhaar cards as proof of age (Annexures P-1 and P-2).
- The State of Punjab, through the Deputy Advocate General, accepted notice and expressed no objection to adjudication.
- The Court examined prior precedents from its own benches and a Division Bench on similar issues involving live-in couples.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, to review their representation dated 26.02.2026 (Annexure P-3) and provide necessary protection against threats from family members, without requiring proof of marriage.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees protection to couples in live-in relationships only if they are legally married, or whether the right to life and liberty extends to such relationships irrespective of marital status.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on Pardeep Singh v. State of Haryana and Rajwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab to argue that the right to choose a partner and live with them is intrinsic to personal liberty under Article 21. He emphasized that social disapproval or familial opposition cannot override constitutional rights, and that the State’s duty to protect life and liberty is triggered by credible threat perception, not marital formalities.
For the Respondent
The State did not contest the petition, acknowledging the binding nature of prior judgments. The Deputy Advocate General conceded that the State has a positive obligation under Article 21 to safeguard individuals from threats, regardless of the nature of their relationship.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a doctrinal review of its own precedents, particularly Pardeep Singh and Rajwinder Kaur, to reaffirm the constitutional foundation of personal autonomy. It held that the essence of Article 21 lies in protecting individual dignity and freedom of choice, including the choice of intimate association.
"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 explicitly rejected the notion that marriage is a prerequisite for state protection. It noted that while marriage may offer legal benefits, its absence does not diminish the sanctity of a consensual, adult relationship. The State’s obligation to protect life and liberty is not contingent on societal norms or familial approval.
The Court further clarified that its order does not validate or invalidate the relationship, nor does it preclude investigation into any independent criminal conduct. Protection is granted solely on the basis of threat perception and the inviolability of personal liberty.
The Verdict
The petitioners won. The Court held that Article 21 entitles individuals in live-in relationships to state protection against threats from family members, irrespective of marital status. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, was directed to examine the petitioners’ representation and provide necessary safeguards under law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Protection Is Not Conditional on Marriage
- Practitioners must now argue that any threat to life or liberty of adult cohabiting partners triggers a duty to protect under Article 21, regardless of marital status.
- Police and district authorities cannot refuse protection on grounds of "unconventional" relationships.
- Applications under Article 226 should cite Pardeep Singh and Rajwinder Kaur as binding precedents.
Threat Perception, Not Relationship Type, Triggers State Action
- Courts will assess whether there is a credible, specific threat - not whether the relationship conforms to social norms.
- Aadhaar cards or other age verification documents suffice to establish majority; no marriage certificate is required.
- Petitioners need not prove the "validity" of their relationship; only the existence of threat.
State Cannot Be a Passive Bystander
- The State has a positive obligation to act when life or liberty is endangered, even by private actors.
- Failure to act may expose authorities to liability under Article 21 jurisprudence.
- Police must proactively verify threats and issue protective orders, not wait for violence to occur.
