Live-in couple gets police protection, as court rules ‘adults have right to live with person of choice’

Justice Rupinderjit Chahal observed that the protection of life and liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution flowing from Article 21.

‘Protection of life a basic feature’

• The high court observed that the protection of life and liberty is a basic feature of the Constitution of India flowing from Article 21.
• Without commenting on the legality of the relationship between the petitioners or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the court directed the superintendent of police concerned to consider the petitioners’ representation.
• The high court further directed the authority concerned to assess the threat perception and take appropriate action in accordance with the law.
• The court also clarified that the order would not debar the state or any aggrieved person from initiating appropriate proceedings against either or both petitioners if any cause of action arose from the petitioners living together or if they were involved in any case.

Married and live -in-relationship

It was placed on record that one of the petitioners was stated to be born in January 1994, while the other petitioner was alleged to be born in January 2002. 

The court noted that the couple had produced their Aadhaar cards to prove their ages. 

It was stated that the petitioners are in a “live-in relationship”. It was further added that both the petitioners are married; one of the petitioenr is having three children from his first marriage, whereas the other petitioner has one child from her first marriage. 

The live-in couple approached the high court seeking protection from private individuals.

Arguments 

Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Avtar Singh cited another judgment of this high court to showcase that such protection has been granted in a case where the petitioners were living in a “live-in relationship”. 

It was further submitted that the petitioners had given a representation in May to the superintendent of police concerned, and they would be satisfied in case the authority is directed to look into the said representation and, after considering the threat perception to the petitioners, to take appropriate action. 

Deputy advocate general Gagandeep Singh Chinna accepted notice and stated that he had no objection if the police were directed to consider the petitioners’ representation on the aspect of threat perception and take appropriate action in accordance with the law.

Two women in live-in relationship

In an unrelated case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court intervened to protect a same-sex couple, ruling that LGBTQ+ individuals and inter-caste couples must receive immediate police protection without having to prove a direct threat to their lives.

Justice H S Grewal, in May, directed the senior superintendent of police concerned to consider the same-sex couple’s representation and take immediate necessary steps to protect them from the alleged threat posed by their families.

The high court also referred to an earlier precedent, observing that a neutral approach in police-protection matters involving same-sex, transgender, interfaith or inter-caste couples could adversely affect their fundamental freedoms.

The court further referred to Supreme Court guidelines and observed that any protection granted to couples must safeguard their privacy and dignity.