Trial Courts Must Award Just Compensation In POCSO Cases Beyond Fine Amounts; Interim Payment No Reason To Deny Final Relief: Madras High Court Section 482 CrPC Power Not For Conducting 'Mini-Trial'; Disputed Facts Must Be Adjudicated At Trial: Allahabad High Court Right To Walk On Demarcated Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right; Municipal Authorities Under Enforceable Duty To Provide Pedestrian Infrastructure: Supreme Court Right To Walk Is A Fundamental Right Under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21; Priority Over Motorised Vehicles: Supreme Court Municipal Commissioner Is Disciplinary Authority For All Employees Post-1993 Amendment; Existing Regulations Can't Fetter Statutory Power: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Force Plaintiff To Accept Monetary Compensation Instead Of Removal Of Encroachment Without Prayer: Supreme Court Recruitment Merit Is Not A Vested Right; Public Interest Justifies Disclosing Marks Of Candidates Outside Selection Zone: Supreme Court Special Police Establishment Not An 'Intelligence & Security Organisation', State Cannot Exempt It From RTI Act: Supreme Court Medical Practitioner Not Negligent Merely Because Result Was A Failure If Procedure Adopted Was Acceptable To Medical Science: Calcutta High Court Long Service Cannot Be Denied Regularization On Mere Technicalities If Appointment Wasn't Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Nomination Paper Can Only Be Challenged Through Election Petition; Article 329(b) Bars Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court NI Act | Benefit Of Presumptions Under Sections 118 & 139 Not Available If Complainant Lacks Direct Knowledge Of Transaction: Kerala High Court Landowners Entitled To Solatium Under National Highways Act; Failure To Grant Is Ground To Challenge Award Under Section 34: MP High Court Transfer Policy Only Broad Guideline, Not Enforceable Under Article 226/227 In Absence Of Mala Fides: Rajasthan High 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

  • by sayum
    22 June 2026 1:58 PM
Transfer Policy Only Broad Guideline, Not Enforceable Under Article 226/227 In Absence Of Mala Fides: Rajasthan High Court
  • by sayum
    22 June 2026 1:58 PM
Landowners Entitled To Solatium Under National Highways Act; Failure To Grant Is Ground To Challenge Award Under Section 34: MP High Court
  • by sayum
    22 June 2026 1:57 PM
NI Act | Benefit Of Presumptions Under Sections 118 & 139 Not Available If Complainant Lacks Direct Knowledge Of Transaction: Kerala High Court
  • by sayum
    22 June 2026 1:57 PM
Rejection Of Nomination Paper Can Only Be Challenged Through Election Petition; Article 329(b) Bars Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    22 June 2026 9:30 AM
Long Service Cannot Be Denied Regularization On Mere Technicalities If Appointment Wasn't Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court
  • by sayum
    22 June 2026 9:30 AM
Medical Practitioner Not Negligent Merely Because Result Was A Failure If Procedure Adopted Was Acceptable To Medical Science: Calcutta High Court