The Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed that while Article 21 guarantees the right to life and liberty, it does not override statutory protections for minors involved in live-in relationships. The Court directed immediate procedural compliance under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, when a petitioner’s minority is reasonably suspected, establishing a clear framework for balancing personal autonomy with child welfare obligations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Sukhpreet Kaur and Sawaran Singh, seek protection from threats to their life and liberty arising from their live-in relationship. Sukhpreet Kaur, the first petitioner, is alleged to be 18 years old by her claim, but her family asserts she is only 16. The petitioners have no official documentation beyond an Aadhaar card to substantiate her age. They allege that members of Sukhpreet Kaur’s family, identified as respondents 4 to 7, pose a credible threat to their safety due to disapproval of the relationship.
Key Facts
- Sukhpreet Kaur claims to be 18 years old; Sawaran Singh is 23 years old.
- The petitioners have been living together in a live-in relationship since early 2026.
- On 07.03.2026, the petitioners submitted a written representation (Annexure P-3) to the Superintendent of Police, District Sirsa, seeking police protection.
- No action was taken on the representation despite the stated threat.
- The State, through the Director of Public Prosecutions, submitted that family members of Sukhpreet Kaur have deposed before authorities that she is a minor aged 16 years.
- No birth certificate, school records, or other age-proof documents were produced by the petitioners.
Procedural History
- 07.03.2026: Representation filed with Superintendent of Police, Sirsa, seeking protection.
- 18.03.2026: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
- 18.03.2026: Court heard arguments and issued directions on the same day.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners: The petitioners argued that their right to life and liberty under Article 21 is being violated due to threats from family members. They contended that their relationship, though unconventional, is consensual and adult-led, and that the State has a duty to protect them from violence. They sought immediate police protection and a direction to the authorities to act on their representation.
For the Respondent-State: The State contended that if Sukhpreet Kaur is a minor, her involvement in a live-in relationship with an adult male constitutes an offence under various provisions, including Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, if she is below 18. The State emphasized its duty as parens patriae to protect minors from exploitation, even if the minor appears to consent. It argued that granting protection to such relationships would undermine statutory safeguards designed to prevent child exploitation and moral degradation.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the State to:
- Provide immediate police protection against threats from family members.
- Act on the representation dated 07.03.2026.
- Issue directions to the Superintendent of Police, Sirsa, to ensure their safety.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State’s obligation to protect the life and liberty of individuals under Article 21 extends to shielding persons in live-in relationships when one party is suspected to be a minor under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and whether the Court must prioritize statutory child protection mechanisms over personal autonomy claims in such cases.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21, citing Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M., to argue that consensual adult relationships, including live-in arrangements, are protected under the Constitution. They contended that age is a factual issue that must be proven, not presumed, and that the State cannot deny protection merely on the basis of unverified family assertions. They emphasized that the petitioners had already approached the police and were entitled to a response.
For the Respondent
The State relied on the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, particularly Section 2(k) defining a child as a person below 18 years, and Section 36 requiring inquiry into the circumstances of a child in need of care and protection. It argued that the Court, as parens patriae, cannot ignore credible allegations of minority. The State cited State of Haryana v. Mukesh and In re: Minor Girl to assert that consent is legally irrelevant when a minor is involved in relationships with adults, and that protection must be channeled through child welfare mechanisms, not police intervention alone.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the sanctity of Article 21 and the State’s duty to protect citizens from threats. However, it held that this duty cannot operate in a vacuum when statutory frameworks exist to safeguard minors. The Court emphasized that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, is a comprehensive, child-centric legislation designed to prevent exploitation, trafficking, and abuse, and that its provisions must be triggered whenever a child’s age is in doubt.
"Once a credible assertion of minority is brought before the Court, it becomes incumbent upon the Court, in its capacity as parens patriae, to ensure that the statutory safeguards under the Juvenile Justice Act are not bypassed in the name of personal liberty."
The Court distinguished this case from those involving consenting adults, noting that the absence of age-proof documents and the conflicting claims from family members created a reasonable basis for suspicion. It held that the petitioners’ request for police protection could not be granted outright without first determining the minor’s age through the legally mandated process.
The Court adopted the procedural framework laid down in P…….. Minor through Vikram vs. State of Haryana, directing that:
- The Superintendent of Police must verify Sukhpreet Kaur’s age within seven days.
- If found to be a minor, she must be produced before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC).
- The CWC must conduct an inquiry under Section 36 of the JJ Act, involving all stakeholders.
- Interim custody and placement decisions must be made under Section 37.
- The CWC must submit a compliance report to the Court.
The Court clarified that this process does not preclude protection against threats. The police are directed to ensure physical safety during the inquiry, but any criminal action against Sawaran Singh, if warranted, must proceed independently under applicable law.
The Verdict
The petitioners’ request for direct police protection was denied pending age verification. The Court directed:
- Sukhpreet Kaur and Sawaran Singh to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Sirsa, within 7 days.
- If Sukhpreet Kaur is found to be a minor, she shall be produced before the Child Welfare Committee within 7 days of age determination.
- The Child Welfare Committee shall conduct an inquiry under Section 36 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and submit a compliance report to the Court.
- The Superintendent of Police shall ensure physical safety of both petitioners during the pendency of proceedings, without impeding lawful action against Sawaran Singh if found guilty of an offence.
- If the petitioners fail to appear within 7 days, the Superintendent shall depute a Child Welfare Police Officer to produce Sukhpreet Kaur before the CWC within one week.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Age Verification Precedes Protection in Live-in Cases
- Practitioners must now treat any allegation of minority in live-in relationships as a trigger for mandatory referral to the Child Welfare Committee under the JJ Act, 2015.
- Police protection cannot be granted as a matter of course; it must be conditioned on compliance with statutory child protection procedures.
- Courts will not entertain writs seeking protection for live-in relationships where one party’s age is unverified and contested.
Consent Is Irrelevant for Minors Under JJ Act
- The Court reaffirmed that consent of a minor, even if apparent, does not negate the applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act.
- Any adult in a relationship with a minor may face criminal liability under IPC or POCSO, regardless of the minor’s willingness.
- Legal representation must now include proactive steps to verify age and initiate CWC proceedings before seeking constitutional remedies.
State Must Act Proactively, Not Reactively
- The judgment imposes a positive duty on police and child welfare authorities to act on suspicion of minority, even without formal complaint.
- Failure to follow the prescribed procedure under Sections 36 and 37 may render State action liable for judicial review.
- Courts will now expect compliance reports from CWCs, making this a live, monitored process - not a one-time referral.
