The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Police to extend protection to 12 live-in couples, who allegedly faced threats to their lives and personal safety from family members and failed to get adequate police response at the district level.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh held on Wednesday that consenting adults in a live-in relationship were entitled to protection of life and personal liberty under the Constitution.
Expressing serious concern over the increasing number of such petitions being filed before the High Court, Justice Singh said the petitioners consistently asserted that despite approaching local police authorities, no effective security had been provided, leaving them with no alternative remedy except to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226.
The High Court examined whether the absence of a formal marital relationship could dilute constitutional protection and held that it could not. It ruled that the right to life occupied the highest constitutional pedestal and remained enforceable irrespective of whether a citizen was married or unmarried. The mere fact that the petitioners had chosen not to solemnise their relationship through marriage did not deprive them of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, it added.
Justice Singh clarified that the issue before the Court was not the social acceptance or moral evaluation of live-in relationships, but whether adults choosing such relationships were protected by law. While societal views on live-in relationships may differ, the law did not prohibit such arrangements, he added.
The High Court further took note of the statutory recognition of non-marital domestic relationships under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which extended legal remedies to women in domestic relationships without insisting on the existence of a valid marriage. This legislative framework reflected an acknowledgement of evolving social realities within the bounds of constitutional law.
It further addressed the autonomy and decisional freedom of adults. Justice Singh held that once an individual attained the age of majority, they were legally competent to determine where and with whom to reside. Any interference by family members or third parties, the Court observed, amounted to an unlawful intrusion into the individual’s constitutionally protected sphere of personal liberty.
The single-judge Bench underscored the constitutional obligation of the State to protect citizens from threats to life and liberty. It held that the State machinery, including the police, was duty-bound to act promptly and effectively whenever such threats were brought to its notice, regardless of the personal choices made by the individuals concerned.
The judgment relied upon a consistent line of Supreme Court decisions affirming that the right to choose a partner was an intrinsic facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court observed that any obstruction to this choice struck at the core of individual autonomy and human dignity, which formed the foundation of constitutional freedoms.
Justice Singh also considered earlier High Court rulings that had declined to grant protection to live-in couples. He distinguished those decisions on facts and declined to follow them, observing that the present cases involved consenting adults who had committed no offence under criminal or civil law. The Court held that denying protection in such circumstances would be contrary to binding Supreme Court precedent and constitutional principles.
Reaffirming its conclusion, the Court held that the judiciary was not concerned with passing judgment on the personal decisions of adults who chose to reside together without marriage. In the absence of any criminality, the Court found no legal impediment to granting protection.
Accordingly, all twelve writ petitions were allowed. The Court issued detailed directions to ensure effective police protection. It permitted the petitioners to approach the Commissioner of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police, or Superintendent of Police concerned, along with a certified copy of the order. Upon verification that the individuals were majors and residing together of their own free will, the authorities were directed to provide immediate and necessary protection.
The Court further directed that where documentary proof of age was unavailable, the police could resort to ossification tests or other legally permissible methods to ascertain age, ensuring compliance with due process and established legal standards.
The post Allahabad High Court grants police protection to 12 live-in couples appeared first on India Legal.