Allahabad High Court Orders Police Protection for 12 Live-in Couples, Affirms Constitutional Right to Life and Personal Liberty
By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court has directed the police to provide protection to 12 live-in couples who approached the court claiming they were facing threats from their families and were not receiving adequate security from local law enforcement authorities.
Hearing all the petitions together, Justice Vivek Kumar Singh held that adults living in a consensual live-in relationship are entitled to full protection of their life and personal liberty under the Constitution.
The court observed that an increasing number of such petitions are being filed, with couples stating that despite approaching district police authorities, they failed to receive effective protection, leaving the court as their only recourse.
Addressing the question of whether the absence of a formal marriage deprives individuals of constitutional safeguards, the court made it clear that fundamental rights do not depend on marital status.
It ruled that the right to life and personal liberty must be accorded the highest importance, irrespective of whether a person is married or unmarried, minor or major.
“Mere fact that the petitioners have not solemnized their marriage would not deprive them of their fundamental rights as envisaged under the Constitution of India,” the court observed, emphasizing that constitutional protection extends to all citizens without discrimination.
The High Court clarified that the issue before it was not about societal acceptance of live-in relationships but about constitutional protection for adults who choose to enter into such arrangements.
The court noted that while moral perspectives may differ across society and individuals, legality remains unaffected by such variations.
The judgment further pointed out that live-in relationships are not prohibited under Indian law.
In support of this position, the court referred to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which explicitly recognizes non-marital domestic relationships and provides legal remedies to women in such relationships without making marriage a prerequisite.
A substantial part of the ruling focused on the autonomy and free choice of adults. The court stressed that once an individual attains the age of majority, he or she has the legal right to decide where to live and with whom.
“Once an individual, who is a major, has chosen his or her partner, it is not for any other person, including family members, to object or interfere with their peaceful existence,” the court stated.
The court further underlined the constitutional responsibility of the State in such cases, asserting that the government is duty-bound to safeguard the life and liberty of every citizen.
“It is the bounden duty of the State, in view of the constitutional obligations cast upon it, to protect the life and liberty of every citizen,” the judgment said.
The ruling also relied on consistent Supreme Court precedents which have held that the right to choose a partner is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court noted that any obstruction to this choice would amount to an infringement of both human rights and constitutional freedoms.
Addressing earlier High Court rulings that had denied protection to live-in couples, Justice Singh clarified that those cases were distinguishable.
He observed that the present petitions involved consenting adults who had not committed any offence, and therefore, there was no legal justification to deny them protection.
The court stated that it was “unable to adopt” those earlier views as they were inconsistent with binding Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Reiterating its position later in the judgment, the court observed that it was not the role of the judiciary to judge adults for choosing to live together without the sanctity of marriage.
“The petitioners, being majors, have taken a conscious decision to reside together without entering into marriage.
It is not for the courts to sit in judgment over such a decision. If they have not committed any offence, this court sees no reason why their prayer for protection should not be granted,” the court held.
Consequently, the High Court allowed all 12 petitions and issued specific directions to ensure effective police protection.
It directed that if the couples face threats in the future, they may approach the Commissioner of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), or Superintendent of Police (SP) concerned with a certified copy of the court’s order.
The court mandated that upon verification that the individuals are adults and are living together of their own free will, the police must immediately provide protection.
In cases where documentary proof of age is not available, the police have been permitted to conduct ossification tests or adopt any other lawful method to ascertain the age of the individuals.
The judgment was delivered on December 17.
#AllahabadHighCourt #LiveInRelationships #RightToLife #PersonalLiberty #Article21 #ConstitutionalRights #PoliceProtection #IndividualAutonomy #RuleOfLaw
