The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that the apprehension of threat to life or personal liberty by individuals in a live-in relationship triggers a constitutional duty on the state to provide protective measures, without prejudging the legal status of the relationship. The Court directed the Superintendent of Police to assess the threat and take necessary action, emphasizing that fundamental rights cannot be compromised by societal or familial opposition.
The Verdict
The petitioners won. The High Court held that apprehension of threat to life or personal liberty by individuals in a live-in relationship, even if unproven, obligates the state to provide protective measures under Article 226. The Court directed the petitioners to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur, to submit a formal representation, after which the police must conduct a hearing and calibrate threat perception to issue appropriate protective orders. No finding was made on the validity of the relationship or the agreement.
Background & Facts
The petitioners, Kiran and Rakesh, are both adults who claim to be in a live-in relationship and have executed a written agreement on 17 January 2026. They allege that the private respondents, who are family members of both parties, oppose their relationship and have issued threats to their life and personal liberty. The petitioners, currently residing in Nagaur, Rajasthan, fear violence or forced separation. They approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking immediate protective measures from the state authorities, including the Superintendent of Police and local police station officials.
The respondents, including the State of Rajasthan and the private individuals, did not contest the factual claims of threat in detail. The petitioners did not seek criminal prosecution or annulment of the relationship, but only protective custody or surveillance. The matter was filed as a writ petition, bypassing lower courts, due to the urgency of the threat.
The petition was filed on 21 January 2026 and was heard and disposed of on the same day, reflecting the Court’s recognition of the immediacy of the danger.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an apprehension of threat to life or personal liberty by individuals in a live-in relationship, unsupported by a criminal complaint or prior police record, is sufficient to trigger the state’s constitutional obligation to provide protection under Article 226.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners’ counsel argued that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is inviolable and extends to the choice of partner, including in live-in relationships. Citing Supreme Court precedents on the autonomy of adults to choose their life partners, they contended that familial opposition coupled with threats constitutes a violation of fundamental rights. They emphasized that the state’s duty to protect citizens is not contingent on the legal recognition of the relationship, but on the existence of a credible threat. The petitioners relied on the principle that the state must act as a neutral guardian of constitutional rights, even against private actors.
For the Respondent
The State, through the Additional Government Advocate, did not dispute the petitioners’ claim of apprehension. The respondents did not contest the applicability of Article 21 or the duty of police to maintain law and order. The State’s position was essentially neutral, acknowledging the police’s statutory obligation to prevent violence and maintain public order, without taking a stance on the legitimacy of the relationship.
The Court's Analysis
The Court grounded its reasoning firmly in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty as a fundamental right. It held that this right includes the freedom to choose one’s partner and to live with dignity, irrespective of societal or familial disapproval. The Court observed that the state’s duty to protect citizens is not conditional upon judicial validation of the relationship’s legality.
"The right to life and personal liberty is a fundamental right guaranteed to every individual under the Constitution, and the same cannot be compromised under any circumstances. No person can be deprived of his or her life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law."
The Court clarified that while it was not determining the validity of the live-in relationship or the enforceability of the agreement, it was bound to act where a credible apprehension of harm was raised. The Court emphasized that threat assessment and protective measures are administrative functions entrusted to the police, not judicial determinations. Therefore, the appropriate remedy was not to grant immediate protection, but to direct the Superintendent of Police to conduct a fair, impartial inquiry.
The Court further noted that any observation made in the order must not prejudice future civil or criminal proceedings. This was a deliberate effort to avoid judicial overreach into matters that remain subject to investigation or adjudication under ordinary law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment establishes a clear procedural pathway for individuals in live-in relationships who face threats from family or community members. Practitioners can now rely on this order to file writ petitions under Article 226 seeking police protection, even in the absence of FIRs or prior criminal complaints. The ruling reinforces that the state’s duty to protect under Article 21 is triggered by apprehension of harm, not by proof of actual violence.
However, the scope is limited: the judgment does not create a right to permanent protection or police custody. It mandates only a procedural hearing and threat assessment. Future petitioners must submit specific representations naming the alleged threats and must cooperate with police inquiries. The ruling also does not extend to cases involving minors, coercion, or fraud, which remain subject to separate legal scrutiny.
This precedent will be particularly useful in cases involving inter-caste or inter-religious relationships where honor-based threats are common. It shifts the burden from the victim to prove imminent danger to the state to respond to credible apprehension.
