Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Right to Life and Liberty Paramount’ in Live-In Relationship Protection Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable judgment, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted protection to a couple in a live-in relationship, emphasizing the primacy of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The ruling, delivered by Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi on 7th May 2024, directs the authorities to assess the threat perception and take appropriate measures to protect the petitioners, regardless of the legal status of their relationship.

The petitioners, Harpreet Kaur and another individual, sought the court’s intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution, citing threats from their relatives due to their live-in relationship. Harpreet Kaur, previously married with three children, is awaiting the finalization of her divorce. Her partner, the second petitioner, is unmarried. They claimed that their safety was compromised by their relatives’ disapproval of their relationship, prompting them to seek legal protection.

Right to Life and Liberty: Justice Bedi highlighted the inviolable nature of the right to life and liberty, stating, “The protection under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount and not contingent upon the legality of the relationship.” The judgment emphasized that every individual, irrespective of societal norms, is entitled to protection of their fundamental rights.

Legal Status of Relationship: The court asserted that the protection of life and liberty should not be dependent on the formalization of relationships. Justice Bedi cited prior judgments to support this view, noting, “The individual has the right to choose a partner of his/her choice and is entitled to equal protection of laws as any other citizen of the country.”

The judgment referenced several landmark cases, including Pardeep Singh and another vs. State of Haryana (CRWP-4521-2021), where protection was extended to a live-in couple. “This increasing social acceptance of live-in relationships underscores the need for legal protection irrespective of traditional views,” Justice Bedi remarked.

Justice Bedi eloquently stated, “The law postulates that the life and liberty of every individual is precious and must be protected irrespective of individual views.” He further added, “No person can be permitted to take law in his hands in a country governed by the Rule of Law.”

The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision reinforces the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual rights, regardless of societal prejudices. By directing authorities to ensure the couple’s protection, the court reaffirms the paramount importance of the right to life and liberty. This ruling is anticipated to influence future cases, highlighting that the protection of fundamental rights transcends societal and legal norms regarding relationships.

Date of Decision:7th May 2024

Harpreet Kaur and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others

Latest Legal News