Plaintiff In Title Suit Must Prove Own Case On Independent Evidence, Cannot Rely On Weakness Of Defence: Supreme Court Advocate Commissioner's Failure To Localize Land Per Title Deeds Fatal To Encroachment Claim: Andhra Pradesh High Court Enmity Is A Double-Edged Weapon, Can Be Motive For False Implication As Much As For Crime: Allahabad High Court Parity In Bail: Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To Accused In Robbery Case As Mastermind & Main Offenders Were Already Enlarged Specific Performance Denied If Buyer Fails To Prove Continuous Readiness With Funds; Part-Payment Can't Be Forfeited Without Specific Clause: Delhi High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept In Police Stations For Long, Courts Must Judiciously Exercise Power To Release On Supurdagi: Madhya Pradesh High Court Prolonged Incarceration Militates Against Article 21, Constitutional Principles Must Override Section 37 NDPS Rigors: Punjab & Haryana High Court Onus On Individual To Prove Claim Of 'Fear Of Religious Persecution' For Exemption Under Foreigners Act: Calcutta High Court Direct Recruits Cannot Claim Seniority From A Date Prior To Their Entry Into The Cadre: Orissa High Court Sale Deed Executed After Land Vests In State Confers No Title; Post-Vesting Purchaser Can’t Claim Compensation: Calcutta High Court No Right To Blanket Regularization For Contractual Staff; State Must Timely Fill Sanctioned Vacancies Under Reserved Quota: Supreme Court Non-Signatory Collaborator Under 'Deed Of Joint Undertaking' Can Invoke Arbitration Clause As A 'Veritable Party': Supreme Court Insolvency Proceedings Cannot Be Used As Coercive Recovery Mechanism For Complex Contractual Disputes: Supreme Court Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To Sale Cannot Challenge Transfer Under PTCL Act After Long Delay: Supreme Court SC/ST Act | Proceedings To Annul Sale Illegal If Initiated By Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To The Transaction: Supreme Court Consumers Cannot Be Burdened With Tariff Charges Beyond Period Of Service Delivery: Supreme Court Mere Non-Production Of Old Selection Records Or Non-Publication Of All Candidates' Marks No Ground To Direct Appointment: Supreme Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals Against Acquittal In Sohrabuddin Shaikh Encounter Case; Says Prosecution Failed To Prove Conspiracy Dishonour Of Cheque Due To Signature Mismatch Or Incomplete Signature Attracts Section 138 NI Act: Supreme Court 138 NI Act | High Court Cannot Let Off Accused In NI Act Case By Ordering Only Cheque Amount Payment Without Interest Or Penalty: Supreme 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