The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh police to provide protection to 12 live-in couples who told the court they were facing threats from their families and had failed to get adequate security from local authorities. The court held that adult couples in live-in relationships are entitled to full constitutional protection of life and personal liberty.
Justice Vivek Kumar Singh passed the order while allowing 12 separate petitions filed by couples who said they feared for their safety due to opposition from family members. The court noted that many such couples had approached district police authorities but received no effective assistance, leaving them with no option but to seek judicial intervention.
Addressing the core legal issue, the High Court made it clear that the absence of a formal marriage does not dilute constitutional rights. The court observed that the right to life and personal liberty occupies a higher constitutional pedestal and applies equally to all citizens, irrespective of whether they are married or unmarried.
“Mere fact that the petitioners have not solemnized marriage would not deprive them of their fundamental rights as envisaged in the Constitution of India,” the court held, emphasizing that constitutional protection flows from citizenship, not social status.
Justice Singh clarified that the court was not examining whether society approves of live-in relationships. Instead, the issue was whether adults choosing to live together are protected by the Constitution. On this, the court was unequivocal, noting that while social and individual morality may differ, legality remains unaffected by such perceptions.
The High Court further pointed out that live-in relationships are not prohibited by law, even if sections of society remain uncomfortable with the idea. Once a person attains majority, the court said, they are legally free to decide where and with whom they wish to live.
“Once an individual, who is a major, has chosen his/her partner, it is not for any other person, be it a family member, to object and cause a hindrance to their peaceful existence,” the court observed. It added that protecting the life and liberty of citizens is a “bounden duty of the state” under the Constitution.
The judgment also dealt with earlier high court rulings that had refused police protection to live-in couples. Justice Singh said the court was “unable to adopt” those views as they were inconsistent with settled Supreme Court jurisprudence. The present cases, the court noted, involved adults who had not committed any offence, leaving no legal justification to deny protection.
Allowing all 12 petitions, the High Court issued directions to the police to ensure the safety of the couples and laid down detailed instructions on how authorities must respond if they face threats in the future. The ruling reinforces the position that constitutional rights cannot be curtailed by social disapproval or familial pressure.
