Inability To Trace Beneficiaries Cannot Defeat Or Postpone Compensation Disbursal: Supreme Court Directs High Court Suo Motu Proceedings Disability Pension | Mere Manifestation Of Disease During Military Service Without Causal Connection Is Not Sufficient For Entitlement: Supreme Court Prevention Of Corruption Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Appointment Contrary To Statutory Requirements And Advertisement Terms Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court IT Act | Once Settlement Commission Admits Application Under Section 245C, Assessing Officer Loses Jurisdiction To Reopen Assessment Under Section 148: Supreme Court NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Unbroken Chain Of Custody For Samples, Failure To Comply With Section 52-A Renders FSL Report Inadmissible: Supreme Court Section 180 BNSS | Investigating Officers Must Adopt Transparent Practices; DGP Should Consider Making Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory: Allahabad High Court Rowdy Sheet Cannot Be Opened In A Mechanical Manner Based On Mere Pendency Of Two Criminal Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Surname Protection Under Section 35 Trade Marks Act Not Restricted To Natural Persons': Bombay High Court Allows Corporate Body To Use Family Name Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Prove Connectivity Between Accused And Crime, Mere 'Last Seen' Theory Insufficient: Calcutta High Court Section 482 BNSS | Criminal Prosecution Against Company Directors Cannot Be Quashed When Investigation Reveals Active Role Beyond Mere Designation: Delhi High Court Cannot Be Permitted To Patch Up Weak Points: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Belated Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Plea Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Burden To Prove Material Irregularity Or Fraud In Court Auction Sale Lies Upon Judgment Debtor: Kerala High Court Departmental Instructions Not Being Mandatory, Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Enquiry If Guilt Is Proved By Other Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court Doctrine Of Res Gestae | Hearsay Evidence Can Be Admissible If Statement Is Spontaneous And Contemporaneous With The Occurrence: Madras High Court Relatives Cannot Be Roped Into Matrimonial Disputes On The Basis Of Omnibus Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Discharge Victim In Private Complaint Case Entitled To File Appeal Against Acquittal Before Sessions Court U/S 372 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Remand, Entitles Accused To Bail: Orissa High Court Section 18 Limitation Act | Acknowledgement Of Loan In Promissory Note Extends Period Of Limitation For Entire Debt: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Existence Of Defence Founded On Disputed Facts Cannot Be Ground To Scuttle Cheque Bounce Prosecution At Inception: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Promotion Does Not Exist Under Repealed Rules Following Policy Restructuring: Supreme Court

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.

Latest Legal News