The Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed that major adults in live-in relationships are entitled to the same constitutional protection of life and liberty as any other citizen, regardless of marital status or societal disapproval. This ruling reinforces the primacy of individual autonomy under Article 21 and sets a clear precedent for state obligations in safeguarding personal choices against familial threats.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Jashandeep Kaur and another, seek protection from threats to their life and liberty by their respective family members, who oppose their live-in relationship. Petitioner No. 2 is legally married to another person but is cohabiting with Petitioner No. 1. Both petitioners are adults, as evidenced by their Aadhaar cards, and have been residing together against the wishes of their families. They allege that their family members, acting as private respondents, have exerted pressure, intimidation, and threats of violence, and that local police authorities have failed to act despite formal representations.
Key Facts
- Petitioner No. 1 is an adult, as confirmed by Aadhaar Card (Annexure P-1)
- Petitioner No. 2 is an adult, as confirmed by Aadhaar Card (Annexure P-2)
- Petitioner No. 2 is legally married to a third party but is in a live-in relationship with Petitioner No. 1
- The couple submitted a joint representation dated 17.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa, and the Station House Officer, City Budhlada, Mansa
- No action was taken by the police in response to the representation
- The petitioners express credible fear for their safety due to the alleged influence and threats from their family members
Procedural History
- 17.04.2026: Representation filed with police authorities seeking protection
- 20.04.2026: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Punjab and Haryana High Court
- 20.04.2026: Court issued notice only to official respondents; AAG Punjab accepted notice on behalf of the State
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the State authorities to provide immediate and effective protection to their life and liberty from threats posed by family members, and to ensure that no harm is caused to them due to their choice of cohabitation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees protection to major adults in a live-in relationship, even when one party is already married, against threats from family members, and whether such protection can be denied on grounds of social disapproval or non-marital status.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioners relied on two precedents from the same High Court: Amandeep Kaur & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (02.11.2021) and Pardeep Singh and Another v. State of Haryana and Others (18.05.2021). In both cases, the Court had granted protection to couples in live-in relationships despite one party being married. Counsel argued that the right to choose a partner and live with them is an intrinsic part of personal liberty under Article 21, and that the State has a positive obligation to protect individuals from threats by private actors when the threat is credible and the individuals are adults.
For the Respondent
The Additional Advocate General for Punjab accepted notice and did not oppose the petition. He acknowledged the binding nature of the earlier judgments and conceded that the petitioners, being major adults, were entitled to protection under the Constitution. No substantive counter-arguments were presented.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a comprehensive review of the constitutional framework governing personal liberty and autonomy. It emphasized that Article 21 protects not only the right to life but also the right to live with dignity, which includes the freedom to choose one’s partner and the nature of one’s relationship. The Court noted that while the petitioners’ relationship may not conform to traditional norms, the Constitution does not mandate social approval as a condition for legal protection.
"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 marital status or societal disapproval can diminish the constitutional rights of adults. It drew a direct analogy between couples seeking protection from families after a marriage against parental opposition and couples in live-in relationships. The Court held that the only relevant distinction is whether the individuals are adults and capable of making informed choices.
The Court further clarified that its order does not validate or approve the legality of the relationship under personal laws or criminal statutes. It emphasized that protection is granted solely to preserve life and liberty, not to condone any potential violation of other laws, such as those relating to bigamy.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mansa, to consider the representation dated 17.04.2026 and take appropriate steps to ensure no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners. The order is strictly limited to protection from threats by private parties and does not grant immunity from criminal proceedings if either petitioner is found to have committed a cognizable offence. The Court clarified that its direction is contingent upon the petitioners being adults, as verified by their Aadhaar cards.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Protection Is Not Conditional on Marital Status
- Practitioners can now cite this judgment to seek immediate police protection for any adult couple in a live-in relationship facing threats from family members
- The State’s duty to protect under Article 21 is triggered by credible threat perception, not by the legal validity of the relationship
- Police cannot refuse protection on grounds of moral disapproval or social stigma
Judicial Precedent Now Binding Across Punjab and Haryana
- Pardeep Singh and Amandeep Kaur are now firmly established as binding precedents within the jurisdiction
- Lower courts and police authorities must treat live-in relationships as constitutionally protected arrangements for the purpose of personal security
- Any refusal to act on representations from such couples may now be challenged via writ petition under Article 226
Limitations on the Scope of Protection
- This protection does not extend to shielding individuals from prosecution under other laws (e.g., Section 494 IPC for bigamy)
- The Court’s order is not a declaration of the relationship’s legality under personal or criminal law
- Protection is available only if the individuals are proven to be adults and the threat is substantiated
