The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed the right of couples in live-in relationships to seek police protection against threats from relatives, invoking the Supreme Court's precedent in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. The judgment underscores the state's obligation to safeguard individuals exercising their personal liberties, even when such choices are opposed by family members.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Sunita Yadav (aged 21) and Gopal (aged 25), claimed to be in a live-in relationship against the wishes of their parents and relatives. They alleged that they faced threats from the private respondents, who are their relatives, and sought adequate security and protection from the state authorities. Despite their requests, no protection was provided, prompting them to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Key Facts
- The petitioners reside in Darjiyo Ka Bas, Karamavas Patta, Pipliya Kalan, District Pali, Rajasthan
- They submitted documents verifying their ages and an ikrarnama (affidavit) confirming their live-in relationship
- The petitioners alleged that they had approached the concerned authorities (respondents 2, 3, and 4) for protection but received no response
- The private respondents (respondents 5 to 8) are relatives of the petitioners, residing in Pali (Raj), Delhi, and Kurukshetra (Haryana)
Procedural History
- 07.07.2026: The petitioners filed S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 3138/2026 before the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench
- The petition was listed for hearing on 07.07.2026 before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Mathur
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a direction to the respondent authorities (State of Rajasthan, Superintendent of Police Pali, and Station House Officers of Pali and Delhi) to:
- Conduct an enquiry into their complaint
- Provide adequate protection to ensure their safety against threats from relatives
- Ensure no harm is caused to them due to their live-in relationship
The Legal Issue
The primary question before the court was whether the state is obligated to provide police protection to individuals in a live-in relationship who face threats from their relatives, and if so, under what legal framework this protection can be granted.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., where the Court held that adults have the right to choose their life partners and live together without interference from family members. They argued that the state's failure to provide protection violated their fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. They further contended that the authorities had a duty to enquire into their complaint and take necessary action to prevent harm.
For the Respondents
The state, represented by the Public Prosecutor, did not contest the petitioners' claim for protection. Instead, the court noted the absence of any opposition and proceeded to dispose of the matter based on the merits of the petitioners' submissions.
The Court's Analysis
The court observed that the petitioners, being majors, had the right to live together as per their choice, a principle firmly established in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. The judgment in Lata Singh had categorically held that:
"A live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterogenous sex does not amount to any offence even though it may be perceived as immoral. The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to choose one's life partner and live with them without interference."
The court further noted that the state's obligation to protect individuals from threats to their life and liberty is a constitutional duty. It relied on the following legal principles:
- Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21): The court reiterated that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity and personal autonomy, which encompasses the freedom to choose a life partner.
- State's Duty to Protect: The court emphasized that the state cannot abdicate its responsibility to protect citizens merely because their choices are unpopular or opposed by family members.
- Judicial Precedent: The court distinguished the present case from scenarios where protection is sought against state action, holding that the state's duty extends to protecting individuals from private threats as well.
The court directed the respondent authorities to enquire into the matter and provide protection as warranted, ensuring that no harm befalls the petitioners.
The Verdict
The Rajasthan High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- The respondent authorities (Superintendent of Police, Pali, and Station House Officers of Pali and Delhi) shall enquire into the petitioners' complaint
- If required, adequate protection shall be provided to the petitioners to safeguard their life and liberty
- The authorities shall ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioners due to their live-in relationship
- The petition was disposed of with no costs awarded
What This Means For Similar Cases
Protection for Live-In Couples Is a Constitutional Right
- The judgment reinforces that live-in relationships between consenting adults are protected under Article 21, and the state has a duty to safeguard such couples from threats, whether from family members or others
- Practitioners can cite this judgment to argue for police protection in cases where couples face harassment or threats due to their relationship choices
State Cannot Evade Its Duty to Protect
- The court's direction to enquire into the complaint and provide protection underscores that the state cannot ignore requests for protection merely because the threat originates from private individuals
- This sets a precedent for holding authorities accountable for failing to act on complaints of threats to personal liberty
Enquiry and Protection Must Be Timely
- The judgment implies that authorities must act promptly on complaints of threats to life and liberty, especially in cases involving personal relationships
- Couples in similar situations can seek mandamus under Article 226 to compel authorities to fulfil their constitutional duty
