Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Life and Liberty of Every Individual Is Precious and Must Be Protected Irrespective of Individual Views: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Rights of Individuals in Live-In Relationships

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a pivotal judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has underscored the fundamental rights of individuals in live-in relationships, highlighting the constitutional mandate to protect life and liberty under any circumstances.

Legal Point: The ruling focused on the crucial issue of safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals in non-marital relationships, emphasizing the constitutional protections afforded under Article 21.

Facts and Issues: Petitioners Diljot Kaur and another individual approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking protection due to perceived societal threats arising from their live-in relationship. The case posed important questions regarding societal norms and the extent of legal protections available to individuals in such relationships, particularly when the partners have previous marital commitments.

Legal Protection for Live-In Relationships: Referencing multiple precedents, the Court pointed out that personal choices in relationships must be protected by law. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi noted, "The concept of live-in relationships has crept into our society from western nations...and is now gaining acceptance even in smaller towns and villages."

Assessment of Threat Perception: The Court directed authorities to evaluate the threats against the petitioners and provide necessary protection, firmly stating that taking the law into one's own hands is unacceptable.

Societal Evolution and Legal Stance: The judgment also discussed the evolving societal attitudes toward non-traditional relationships and the legal system's role in adapting to these changes while protecting individual rights.

Protection Despite Legal and Social Challenges: The decision emphasized that the protection of life and liberty remains a priority, regardless of the relationship's legal status or social acceptance.

Decision: The petition was resolved with directives to the state to assess the threat level to the petitioners and act accordingly to ensure their safety, reinforcing the constitutional responsibility to protect every individual's rights.

Date of Decision: April 19, 2024

Diljot Kaur & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.

Similar News