Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

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