Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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