Two women in live-in relationship: Why court ordered immediate police protection without checking risk levels
The petitioners’ counsel sought protection of their life and liberty, stating that they were adult women in a live-in relationship against the wishes of their families and faced threat from them.
The counsel for the two women petitioners said they had approached the Patiala SSP seeking protection, but no action was taken on their representation. (Image generated using AI) The Punjab and Haryana High Court has 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. Citing landmark Supreme Court observations on social stigma, the court ordered authorities to safeguard two women in a live-in relationship from family backlash.
Justice H S Grewal directed the senior superintendent of police (SSP), Patiala, to consider the same-sex couple’s representation and take immediate necessary steps to protect them from the alleged threat posed by their families.
“Relying on the Supreme Court’s precedent, wherein it said …the court must acknowledge that some intimate partners may face social stigma …therefore, a court while dealing with a petition for police protection by intimate partners on the grounds that they are a same sex, transgender, inter-faith or inter-caste couple must grant an ad-interim measure, such as immediately granting police protection to the petitioners, before establishing the threshold requirement of being at grave risk of violence and abuse,” the May 22 order noted.
Justice H S Grewal said a neutral approach in such cases could adversely affect their fundamental freedoms.
The court also referred to the observation in the precedent that a neutral approach in such cases dealing with police protection pleas involving same sex, transgender, interfaith, or inter-caste couples could adversely affect their fundamental freedoms.
Supreme Court’s guidelines
- Courts must acknowledge that some couples face social stigma because of their relationship.
- The court must note that taking a neutral approach in such cases may harm the fundamental rights and freedoms.
- When dealing with police protection pleas involving same sex, transgender, interfaith, or inter-caste couples, courts must grant immediate interim protection.
- Such protections should be given before determining the extent of the threat or risk of violence.
- Any protection granted to couples must safeguard their privacy and dignity.
‘Approached Patiala SSP’
- Advocate Rahul Soi, appearing for the petitioners, sought protection of their life and liberty, stating that both petitioners were adult women in a live-in relationship.
- He submitted that the couple was living against the wishes of the respondents and had approached the Patiala SSP seeking protection, but no action was taken on their representation.
- The counsel submitted that they would be satisfied if the superintendent of police, Punjab, could be directed to examine their representation and take necessary action at the earliest.
- The Punjab and Haryana High Court, without expressing any opinion on the petitioners’ live-in relationship, directed the Patiala SSP to consider the couple’s representation and take appropriate steps to protect their lives and liberty from the alleged threat posed by the respondents.
- The court relied on Devu G Nair vs State of Kerala and Others, where the Supreme Court had laid down guidelines for the courts dealing with habeas corpus and police protection pleas involving same sex couples, and intimate partners, to secure fundamental rights and dignity of the LGBTQ communities.
‘Ensure no harm caused’
In a similar case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently granted protection to two women in a live-in relationship after noting from their Aadhaar records that both are adults. It directed the police to ensure their life and liberty are safeguarded against any perceived threat from their families.
Justice Mandeep Pannu was hearing a petition filed by the two adult women who were seeking protection of their life and liberty. “The Senior Superintendent of Police, Khanna, District Ludhiana, is directed to consider the representation dated April 16, 2026, qua threat perception and take appropriate steps to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners,” the court said.
“…The petitioners are major as seen from the documents placed on record, being their Aadhar Cards …This would not ipso facto amount to granting any seal of approval on the legality of their relationship…they would not be entitled for any protection against their arrest or continuance of any criminal proceedings, if otherwise, found to be involved in commission of any cognisable offence,” the April 22 order added.
Share
