Topic
The right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution encompasses fundamental protections including shelter, clean water, healthcare, and personal liberty, as interpreted by Indian courts.
Rajasthan High Court reaffirms that couples in love marriages are entitled to state protection under Article 21, even against family threats. The ruling mandates police intervention to safeguard their right to life and liberty, relying on the landmark Lata Singh v. State of U.P. judgment.
Rajasthan High Court directs police to provide protection to a couple in a live-in relationship facing threats from relatives, relying on Lata Singh v. State of U.P.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that two consenting adults who have married under personal law are entitled to live together without state interference, regardless of whether their marriage is formally registered or legally validated by the court. This reinforces that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 protects cohabitation based on mutual consent, not procedural compliance - a critical safeguard for interfaith and non-traditional unions facing familial pressure.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirmed that the right to life under Article 21 includes protection from threats, even for couples in live-in relationships, without adjudicating the relationship's legality. The ruling mandates police to assess threat perceptions and provide protection, reinforcing state responsibility to safeguard personal liberty regardless of social or legal judgments on relationship status.
Allahabad High Court reinforces that the right to life under Article 21 includes the freedom of consenting adults to cohabit without state interference. The Court directed authorities to refrain from disturbing peaceful live-in relationships, setting a precedent for personal liberty protections.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirmed that the state must proactively protect adult couples in consensual relationships from familial threats, regardless of marriage validity. The ruling mandates police intervention under Article 21, even absent an FIR, reinforcing the principles laid down in Lata Singh and Shakti Vahini.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that adult couples married against parental wishes are entitled to state protection under Article 21 if they face credible threats to life and liberty, even without a registered FIR. The court directed police to assess threats and provide protection, reinforcing the state’s duty to safeguard personal liberty.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court directed police to verify threats and provide protection to an inter-caste couple facing harassment, reaffirming the constitutional right to marry freely under Article 21. The ruling mandates state intervention to safeguard life and liberty, relying on Supreme Court judgments in Lata Singh and Shakti Vahini cases.
The Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 prevails over societal norms, directing police to evaluate threats faced by live-in couples from family members. The ruling mandates state protection for consenting adults, regardless of the relationship's legal status, reinforcing constitutional safeguards against extra-legal coercion.
West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission holds hospitals accountable for service deficiency when a critical patient's transfer is delayed due to lack of a critical care ambulance. The ruling sets a precedent that failure to provide timely emergency care constitutes negligence, awarding ₹15 lakhs compensation with 9% interest to the complainant.
The Madras High Court invoked its Article 226 powers to appoint children as legal guardians of their comatose mother, enabling them to sell property and access bank accounts for medical care. This ruling establishes that constitutional courts can fill statutory gaps to protect the welfare of incapacitated individuals, setting a precedent for guardianship where formal legal provisions are silent.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed police to verify threats and provide immediate protection to adult couples in consensual marriages facing familial harassment, reinforcing that the right to choose a partner is a core component of life and liberty under Article 21. This ruling operationalizes Supreme Court precedents by mandating proactive police intervention, not just reactive aid, shielding couples from honor-based coercion.
Telangana High Court rules that undue delay in releasing admitted retiral benefits-including gratuity, pension, and GPF arrears-violates constitutional rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21. The state must disburse dues within six weeks or pay 10% interest, reinforcing that tokenized dues are enforceable entitlements, not mere administrative formalities.
Madhya Pradesh High Court extends temporary bail for a hospitalized petitioner in her third trimester, emphasizing the right to health and life under Article 21. The ruling sets a precedent for humanitarian considerations overriding strict procedural timelines in criminal cases involving vulnerable accused persons.
Madurai High Court mandates exhumation under Section 196 BNSS in suspicious death cases, directing the appointment of a competent medical officer for post-mortem. The ruling reinforces procedural safeguards under BNSS to ensure thorough investigation where foul play is suspected.