The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Patiala, to look into a representation seeking protection filed by two adult females living together in a same-sex live-in relationship.
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court emphasized the fundamental rights and dignity of intimate partners and members of the LGBTQ communities, drawing upon the guidelines established by the Supreme Court of India.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, two adult females living together in a same-sex live-in relationship, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus. They sought directions to the official respondents to protect their life and liberty from their family members (the private respondents).
According to the petitioners, they are living together against the wishes of their families. To address their safety concerns, they had submitted a representation dated May 14, 2026, to the Respondent No. 2, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, Punjab. However, after failing to receive a response, they approached the High Court.
Arguments Presented
During the hearing, which was conducted via video conferencing, Mr. Rahul Soi, Advocate appearing for the petitioners, contended that both individuals are adult females living in a live-in relationship. He submitted that they face a threat perception from the private respondents. The counsel stated that the petitioners would be satisfied if directions were issued to the SSP Patiala to review their pending representation and take appropriate steps at the earliest.
Notice of motion was issued to respondents No. 1 to 3 only. On behalf of the official respondents, Mr. Parneet Singh Pandher, Additional Advocate General (A.A.G.), Punjab, accepted the notice.
Court’s Analysis and Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent
In evaluating the petition, Justice H.S. Grewal placed reliance on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Devu G Nair vs. State of Kerala and others (2024 SCC Online 351).
The High Court noted that the Supreme Court in the Devu G Nair case laid down comprehensive guidelines for courts dealing with habeas corpus petitions or protection petitions filed by same-sex couples and members of the LGBTQ communities to secure their fundamental rights and dignity.
Justice Grewal specifically quoted the following guideline from the Supreme Court’s ruling:
“16(j). The Court must acknowledge that some intimate partners may face social stigma and a neutral stand of the land would be detrimental to the fundamental freedoms of the appellant. Therefore, a court while dealing with a petition for police protection by intimate partners on the grounds that they are a same sex, transgender, inter-faith or inter-caste couple must grant an ad-interim measure, such as immediately granting police protection to the petitioners, before establishing the threshold requirement of being at grave risk of violence and abuse. The protection granted to intimate partners must be with a view to maintain their privacy and dignity.”
The Decision
Without commenting upon the legal status of the live-in relationship of the petitioners, the High Court disposed of the writ petition.
The Court directed the Respondent No. 2, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, Punjab, to examine the representation dated May 14, 2026, regarding the threat perception. The SSP was directed to “take necessary steps, as may be required, in accordance with law, to ensure that the life and liberty of the petitioners is not jeopardized at the hands of the private respondents.”
However, the Court clarified that this protective direction “will have no effect on any civil or criminal action, which could be initiated in the matter in accordance with law.”
