#Personal Autonomy

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that major individuals in consensual live-in relationships are entitled to police protection against threats from family members, affirming their right to personal autonomy under Article 21 and extending the scope of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act beyond marital ties. This sets a critical precedent for safeguarding adult couples from coercive family interference, regardless of marital status.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that major individuals have an absolute constitutional right under Article 21 to choose their life partner, and that police must proactively shield them from familial threats or interference. This binding directive reinforces that social morality cannot override personal autonomy in marriage, setting a clear precedent for protection of inter-caste and consensual unions across Uttar Pradesh.

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by a father seeking his daughter’s return, affirming that an adult woman’s voluntary choice to remain with her husband-even after a forced marriage-trumps parental custody claims. The court ordered her placement in a Women’s Welfare Center with medical care due to pregnancy, reinforcing that personal liberty and marital autonomy are inviolable under Article 21.

CAT Allahabad rules that an employee's right to decline promotion is a fundamental aspect of personal autonomy, not subject to administrative discretion. The judgment underscores that service rules cannot override constitutional rights, setting a precedent for employment disputes involving forced career advancements.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that habeas corpus cannot be invoked to secure the release of an adult woman residing voluntarily with her father, even if she allegedly married the petitioner. The court emphasized that alternative remedies under the Hindu Marriage Act, such as restitution of conjugal rights, must be pursued instead.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that major adults in live-in relationships-even if one or both are divorced or married-are entitled to constitutional protection under Article 21, directing police to safeguard them from familial threats. The judgment reinforces personal autonomy as a non-negotiable right, irrespective of marital status or societal disapproval.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that live-in couples are entitled to state protection under Article 21, irrespective of marital status. The court emphasized that personal autonomy and dignity override familial or societal disapproval, mandating authorities to act on credible threats to life and liberty.

Madhya Pradesh High Court affirms that adults entering voluntary marriages are entitled to police protection against family harassment, citing Lata Singh and Shakti Vahini.