The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 extends to individuals in live-in relationships who face credible threats from family members. In a significant ruling, the Court directed police authorities to assess threat perception and provide protective measures without prejudging the legitimacy of the relationship, reinforcing that state duty arises from apprehension of harm, not judicial validation of personal choices.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Maya Kumari Bhil and Dinesh Singh, are adults who claim to be in a consensual live-in relationship. They allege that the private respondents - primarily Maya’s parents and siblings - are opposing their relationship and have issued threats to their life and personal liberty. To formalize their union, the petitioners executed a written agreement on 21 January 2026, asserting their mutual consent and autonomy.
Procedural History
The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking immediate protection from alleged threats. They did not seek criminal prosecution or annulment of any family action, but rather a directive to state authorities to ensure their safety. No FIR had been registered at the time of filing, and no criminal proceedings were pending.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a protective order from the state, directing police to safeguard them from harassment, intimidation, or violence by the private respondents. They requested that the state not permit private individuals to take the law into their own hands.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the apprehension of threat to life and personal liberty by adults in a live-in relationship triggers the state’s constitutional obligation under Article 21 to provide protection, even in the absence of a registered FIR or judicial determination of the relationship’s validity.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Firoz Khan, counsel for the petitioners, relied on Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and Puttaswamy v. Union of India to argue that the right to choose a partner and live with dignity is intrinsic to Article 21. He contended that the state’s duty to protect life and liberty is triggered by credible apprehension of harm, regardless of whether the relationship is socially accepted or legally recognized. He emphasized that delay in protection could result in irreversible harm.
For the Respondent
Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Public Prosecutor, argued that the Court should not intervene in what he termed a private family dispute without concrete evidence of criminal intent or prior police complaints. He urged the Court to refrain from legitimizing live-in relationships through judicial orders and suggested that the petitioners should approach local police for preventive measures under existing protocols.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the notion that protection must await criminal proceedings or judicial validation of the relationship. It held that the state’s obligation under Article 21 is proactive, not reactive. The Court emphasized that the right to life includes protection from threats, whether from strangers or family members.
"No person can be deprived of his or her life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law and apprehension relating to life and personal liberty, if asserted, deserves to be examined by the competent authority."
The Court clarified that its role was not to adjudicate the validity of the live-in relationship or the agreement, but to ensure that the constitutional right to safety is not contingent on social approval. It distinguished this from matrimonial disputes by noting that the petitioners were adults capable of making autonomous choices. The Court held that police, as custodians of public order, are constitutionally bound to assess threat perception and act proportionately.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that the state must act on credible apprehension of threat to life and liberty under Article 21, irrespective of the nature of the relationship. It directed the petitioners to appear before the Superintendent of Police within ten days to submit a representation, after which the police must conduct a hearing and calibrate protective measures as necessary.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Protection Is Triggered by Apprehension, Not Proof
- Practitioners must now file writ petitions under Article 226 when clients in live-in relationships face threats, even without an FIR
- The burden is on the state to investigate threat perception, not on the petitioner to prove criminal intent
- Courts will not require validation of the relationship as a precondition for protection
Police Must Conduct Procedural Fairness
- Superintendents of Police are now obligated to hold hearings with both petitioners and alleged threat-makers
- Failure to conduct a fair assessment may render state inaction a violation of Article 21
- Protective orders may include surveillance, relocation assistance, or temporary shelter, depending on threat level
Judicial Neutrality on Relationship Validity Is Binding
- Courts will not opine on the legality or morality of live-in relationships in protection cases
- Any civil or criminal proceedings regarding the relationship remain unaffected and must be pursued separately
- This precedent shields individuals from being denied protection due to societal stigma or familial opposition
