SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(P&H) 15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL, J.
Vicky Kumar and another – Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others – Respondents
CRWP-4182-2026
Decided On : 15-04-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the petitioners:Mr.Kulwinder Dhillon, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr.Sandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab.

The right to life and liberty is a fundamental constitutional guarantee. Individuals, including those in live-in relationships, are entitled to state protection against threats to their safety, regardless of the social or legal status of their relationship, provided they are adults acting of their own free will.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ jurisdiction - Protection of life and liberty - Right to choose a partner and nature of relationship - Live-in relationship - Not prohibited by law - Entitlement to equal protection of laws - Duty of state authorities to consider representations for protection - (Paras 1, 6, 13, 14).

(B) Judicial Review - Scope - Court not required to adjudicate upon the legality of a relationship or social morality when considering a plea for protection of life and liberty - Paramountcy of constitutional right to life - (Paras 9, 13, 14).

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, both being majors, entered into a live-in relationship out of their own free will. Apprehending danger to their life and liberty from private individuals, they submitted a representation to the official authorities seeking protection. Upon the failure of the authorities to act on the representation, the petitioners approached the court for appropriate directions.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the right to life and liberty is a fundamental constitutional guarantee. It held that individuals have the autonomy to choose their partners and the form of their relationship, whether formal or informal. The court emphasized that the state is obligated to protect the life and liberty of citizens regardless of the nature of their relationship or social perceptions, and that no person is permitted to take the law into their own hands.

Issues: Whether a couple in a live-in relationship is entitled to police protection when facing threats to their life and liberty, and whether the court should adjudicate the legality of such a relationship before granting protection.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the protection of life and liberty is a paramount constitutional duty. It held that the legality or social acceptability of a relationship is secondary to the fundamental right to safety, and authorities are mandated to assess threat perceptions and provide necessary protection to individuals regardless of the nature of their association.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions to the authorities to consider the representation and provide protection if necessary.

Table of Content
1. parties seeking judicial intervention for police protection regarding life and liberty in live-in relationships. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. duty of the state to protect life and liberty regardless of the legality of the relationship or personal morality. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. fundamental right of adults to associate and reside with a partner of their choice, requiring state protection against threats. (Para 13)
4. court order directing authorities to evaluate threat perceptions and provide necessary protection without deciding relationship legality. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)

JUDGMENT

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

1. The present Criminal Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India for directing respondents no.1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the date of birth of petitioner no.1 is 16.07.1991 as is apparent from his aadhar card (Annexure P-1) and the date of birth of petitioner no.2 is 13.05.2003 as is apparent from her aadhar card (Annexure P-2) and thus, both the petitioners are major. It is submitted that the petitioners are living in a “Live in Relationship” out of their free will and without any pressure and petitioner no.2 was earlier married to respondent no.4 and out of the said wedlock, they have two children, one of which is living with petitioner no.2 and other is living with the husband of petitioner no.2. It is submitted that there is no decree of divorce between petitioner no.2 and her husband and they have been living separately for the last three months. It is further argued that the petitioners have apprehension of danger to their life and liberty from the private respondents and thus, the petitioners had moved a representation dated 06.04.2026 for protection of their life and liberty and has submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied in case respondent no.2 is directed to look into the said representation and take appropriate action, in accordance with law.

3. Notice of motion to respondent nos.1 to 3 only.

4. On advance notice, Mr.Sandeep Singh, AAG, Punjab, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3. He has stated that he has no objection in case, respondent no.2 looks into the representation dated 06.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) with a limited prayer for only protection of life and liberty of the petitioners and takes appropriate action, in accordance with law.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.

6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 18.05.2021 passed in CRWP-4521-2021 titled asPardeep Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and others has held as under:-

“The Constitution of India is the Supreme Law of the land. Right to life and liberty is enshrined therein and is treated as a basic feature. The said right includes the right of an individual to full development of his/her potential in accordance with his/her choice and wish and for such purpose, he/she is entitled to choose a partner of his/her choice. The individual also has the right to formalize the relationship with the partner through marriage or to adopt the non-formal approach of a live-in- relationship. The concept of live-in-relationships has crept into our society from western nations and initially, found acceptance in the metropolitan cities, probably because, individuals felt that formalization of a relationship through marriage was not necessary for complete fulfillment. Education played a great role in development of this concept. Slowly, the concept has percolated into small towns and villages also as is evident from this petition. This shows that social acceptance for live-in- relationships is on the increase. In law, such a relationship is not prohibited nor does it amount to commission of any offence and thus, in my considered view such persons are entitled to equal protection of laws as any other citizen of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top