Default Bail | Failure To Produce Accused During Hearing For Extension Of Remand Time Is Gross Illegality, Violates Article 21: Andhra Pradesh High Court Section 138 NI Act Liability Of Directors Subsists Despite Initiation Of Liquidation Proceedings Against Company: Supreme Court Purchaser Of Property For Valuable Consideration Cannot Be Accused Of Cheating Original Owner If Title Document Is Forged: Supreme Court Appointment Of Minor To Public Post Is Per Se Illegal, Void Ab Initio: Allahabad High Court Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Abdicate Duty To Decide Limitation Objection Merely Because High Court Appointed Arbitrator: Allahabad High Court Deemed Conveyance Cannot Be Restricted To Building Footprint; Must Include Appurtenant Open Spaces Required By Planning Law: Bombay High Court Mere Discovery Of Accused's Presence At A Location Not A 'Fact Discovered' Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Delhi High Court Acquits Official In 1989 Bribe Case Section 307 IPC Is Not A 'Minor Offence' To Section 324 IPC; Accused Cannot Be Convicted For Attempt To Murder If Only Charged With Voluntarily Causing Hurt: Delhi High Court Landowners Under National Highways Act Entitled To 15% Interest On Enhanced Compensation; Denial Is Discriminatory: Punjab & Haryana HC Omission Of Village Name In Gazette Notification No Bar To Laying Transmission Lines If Area Falls 'Around' Notified Route: Orissa High Court NBFCs Cannot Use Force For Vehicle Repossession; Coercive Debt Recovery Violates Right To Livelihood Under Article 21: Uttarakhand High Court Non-Candidates Cannot Be Impleaded As Parties In Election Petitions Even If Allegations Of Impropriety Are Made: J&K&L High Court Lowest Bidder Has No Vested Right To Contract; Budgetary Constraints Valid Ground To Cancel Tender: Jharkhand High Court Confiscation Of Vehicle Under Section 49 Assam Forest Regulation Is Only Temporary; Final Confiscation Requires Conviction Under Section 51: Gauhati High Court

Life and Liberty Paramount,” Says Punjab and Haryana High Court in Protection Order for Live-in Couple

13 June 2025 2:12 PM

By: sayum


High Court Directs SSP Fazilka to Ensure Safety of Petitioners in Live-in Relationship Chandigarh, 20th June 2024: In a landmark judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana underscored the paramount importance of life and liberty by directing the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka, to assess the threat perception and take necessary action to protect a couple in a live-in relationship. This ruling, delivered by Justice Vikas Bahl, reflects a growing judicial recognition of personal freedoms irrespective of social norms surrounding relationships.

The petitioners, Niru Devi and another, filed a Criminal Writ Petition (CRWP-5786-2024) under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking protection of their life and liberty. Niru Devi, of marriageable age, and her partner, who has not yet attained the age of 21, are living together out of their own free will. They had previously submitted a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka, expressing fears for their safety.

Protection of Life and Liberty:

The court emphasized the constitutional guarantee of protection of life and liberty. It reiterated that the safety of individuals in any relationship, including live-in relationships, should be safeguarded by the state. Justice Bahl noted, “The issue as to whether protection of life and liberty should be granted to a couple in a ‘live-in relationship’ is no longer res integra.”

Justice Bahl referenced several precedents, including the case of Tamanna and another vs. State of Punjab and others (CRWP-7451-2021) where similar protection was granted. He highlighted that in previous cases, courts have consistently prioritized the safety of individuals over the social acceptability of their relationships.

Justice Bahl pointed out the importance of not delving into the merits of the relationship itself but focusing on the immediate concern of the petitioners’ safety. “At this stage, this Court is only concerned with lives and personal liberties of the petitioners,” he stated, reflecting the judiciary’s stance on upholding constitutional rights.

Justice Bahl remarked, “The aspect of life and liberty was considered to be of paramount importance and thus, the Superintendent of Police in the said case was directed to act expeditiously in accordance with law, including the grant of any protection to the petitioners therein.”

The court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka, to assess the threat perception and take appropriate action based on the representation dated 13th June 2024. The judgment clarified that this directive does not preclude the state from proceeding against the petitioners if they are found involved in any other legal issues.

This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to protecting individual rights and freedoms, regardless of societal norms. By prioritizing the protection of life and liberty, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has set a significant precedent for future cases involving unconventional relationships. This decision is expected to influence the legal landscape, ensuring that personal freedoms are upheld and protected.

Date of Decision: 20th June 2024

Latest Legal News