Back
Rules Interfaith Same-Sex Couple Has Article 21 Right to Live Together
In a significant affirmation of , the has held that an interfaith same-sex couple has a under Article 21 of the Constitution to live together peacefully in a . The Court ordered police protection for the couple, rejecting arguments based on and traditional family structures.
Justice Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, presiding over a single-judge bench, was hearing a writ petition filed by Kumari Farida Ansari and Pragati Kushwaha, two adult women who claimed they were facing threats and harassment from family members because of their interfaith and same-sex relationship.
The Plea for Protection
The petitioners, represented by advocates and others, submitted that both women were adults, unmarried, and had voluntarily chosen to live together in a . They alleged that private respondents — identified as Shahbuddin Ansari and Prem Kushwaha, family members of the petitioners — were interfering with their peaceful life and threatening them.
Following an earlier court order, both petitioners appeared personally before the bench on
. The Court recorded that they stated in
"clear, firm and fearless words"
that they were adults and had decided to live together of their own free will, without any pressure or coercion. They expressed their desire to continue living together and sought protection.
State's Objections Based on
The Standing Counsel for the State argued that same-sex relationships lack social acceptance and that the traditional institution of marriage between a man and a woman is essential for procreation. While conceding that the right to choose a partner is protected under Article 21, the State contended that legislative recognition of same-sex unions is not a .
The Court, however, rejected the notion that social disapproval could override constitutional guarantees.
Triumphs
Justice Chowdhary relied heavily on two landmark judgments. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the apex court decriminalized consensual same-sex relationships, holding that is an intrinsic aspect of freedom, , and privacy. The Court also referenced the Constitution Bench decision in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023), which clarified that while there is no unqualified right to marriage, queer and LGBTQ+ persons have a to form relationships under Article 21.
Quoting from the
Supriyo
judgment, the High Court noted that
"queer and LGBTQ+ couples too have the
or relationship (under Article 21) — be it mental, emotional or sexual — flowing from the
,
, and
."
The Court drew a clear distinction between the right to and the legal recognition of marriage. It held that the absence of marital recognition does not permit any third party or administrative authority to interfere with the and physical security of adult citizens.
Key Observations
In a powerful passage, the Court observed:
"When two adult citizens, exercising their and choice, decide to live together, living in a is their under . The family members, relatives or any section of society have no legal right to obstruct their peaceful , intimidate or threaten them, or violate their ."
The Court further noted that the petitioners were adults, educated, and capable of understanding their own welfare, and had chosen to live together after due consideration and without any force.
Court's Direction and Implications
Allowing the petition, the High Court directed that the petitioners are free to live together peacefully and that no person — including family members — shall interfere with their relationship. If any obstruction arises, the petitioners may approach the concerned Police Commissioner, Senior Superintendent of Police, or Superintendent of Police with a certified copy of the order. The police authorities are directed to provide immediate protection after verifying the petitioners' adulthood and voluntary .
The Court also granted liberty to the private respondents to seek recall of the order if they can demonstrate that the documents relied upon by the petitioners are forged or fabricated.
The judgment reaffirms the supremacy of over and underscores that and privacy under Article 21 extend to all adults, regardless of their or religious background.
