The Allahabad High Court has directed law enforcement authorities to grant immediate protection to two adult women of different religious faiths living in a same-sex relationship, affirming their constitutional right to reside together peacefully without harassment or interference.
Allowing their writ petition on September 14, Justice Dr Gautam Chowdhary held that consenting adults possess the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution to choose their domestic arrangements. The court ordered that if the petitioners face disruption to their peaceful life, they may present a certified copy of the order to the relevant police commissioner, senior superintendent of police, or superintendent of police, who must ensure prompt security after confirming their majority and voluntary cohabitation.
Constitutional Shield Under Article 21
Addressing the legal framework governing queer relationships, the bench observed that personal autonomy, dignity, and privacy remain protected under Article 21. The court referenced Supreme Court precedents establishing sexual orientation as an integral component of constitutional liberty.
While taking note of apex court rulings clarifying that marriage or civil unions cannot be claimed as an unqualified fundamental right without legislative enactment, the high court ruled that the absence of statutory recognition for same-sex marriage does not extinguish an adult couple’s constitutional safeguard to live together by mutual consent.
In-Person Assessment and Verification
The ruling followed an in-person interaction between the bench and the petitioners, who appeared before the court pursuant to an earlier directive issued on September 10. During the proceedings, the women produced high school marksheets to establish that they were adults, confirmed they were unmarried, and submitted written statements declaring their relationship.
After examining them directly, the court noted that both women are educated, fully capable of determining their own welfare, and had chosen to cohabit of their own volition without intimidation, force, or undue influence.
Rejection of Familial and Societal Opposition
The petitioners had approached the high court seeking intervention after their families opposed the relationship and subjected them to persistent threats and interference.
In response, counsel representing the state argued that while the selection of a partner falls under Article 21, legal recognition of same-sex unions is not a fundamental entitlement, pointing to traditional views of marriage and a lack of wider social acceptance.
The court rejected the notion that external disapproval could curtail individual freedom, declaring that no party holds any legal authority to oppose two consenting adults residing together in a peaceful domestic partnership.
