Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

No Citizen Can Be Permitted To Take Law In His Own Hands In A Country Governed By Rule Of Law: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Protection For Minor Live-In-Relationship Couples

05 September 2024 6:21 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling reinforcing the right to protection of life and liberty, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today directed the police to assess and respond to threats faced by a couple in a live-in relationship. Justice Harkesh Manuja, presiding over the case, emphasized that the personal choice of the couple must be protected under the law regardless of societal norms.

The petitioners, currently in a live-in relationship, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking protection against ongoing threats from private individuals. The case primarily dealt with the interpretation of the right to life and personal liberty in the context of a non-traditional relationship arrangement.

Petitioner No. 1 is of legal age while Petitioner No. 2 is a minor, aged 17 years and 9 months, involved consensually in the relationship. They have faced persistent threats from certain private individuals, compelling them to seek judicial intervention for their safety. Their previous representations to the police did not yield any action, leading them to file the writ petition.

Nature of the Relationship: The court recognized the relationship as consensual, emphasizing that "the personal choice of two individuals must be respected" irrespective of their unmarried status.

Precedent and Protection: Justice Manuja referred to similar cases, notably 'Shilpa and another Vs. State of Punjab' and 'Pardeep Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana', to underline the judiciary's stance on protecting individuals in live-in relationships akin to married couples from familial and societal threats.

Constitutional Guarantees: The judgment highlighted that the Constitution protects the rights of individuals to make personal choices about their lives. The court stated, "The couple fears for their safety from relatives in both situations and not from society. They are thus, entitled to the same relief."

Police Response Required: The direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, was to objectively assess the threat against the petitioners and take necessary action, without delving into the legitimacy or morality of the relationship.

Decision: The court disposed of the petition by ordering the police to act on the petitioners' complaint, ensuring their safety and upholding their constitutional rights to life and liberty.

Date of Decision: April 20, 2024

Jograj Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others

 

Latest Legal News