Context:
Recently, the Allahabad High Court directed the police to extend immediate protection to 12 couples living in live-in relationships who were reportedly facing threats and harassment from their families and had allegedly received inadequate support from local authorities.
Key Aspects of the Judgment:
-
- Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: The court ruled that adults in live-in relationships are entitled to protection under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The bench observed that the absence of marriage does not diminish an individual’s claim to fundamental rights.
- Legal Status of Live-in Relationships: While acknowledging that live-in relationships may not be uniformly accepted across Indian society, the court clarified that they are not illegal and do not, by themselves, constitute a criminal offence. The bench emphasised that legality is distinct from social or moral acceptability, and personal choice must be respected unless the conduct violates the law.
- Police Protection Directions: The court directed that adult couples living together voluntarily are entitled to police protection if they face threats or harassment. It laid down procedures for police officers to verify age and voluntary consent—using educational certificates or, where necessary, ossification tests in the absence of documentary proof—and to provide protection accordingly.
- Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: The court ruled that adults in live-in relationships are entitled to protection under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The bench observed that the absence of marriage does not diminish an individual’s claim to fundamental rights.
Constitutional and Legal Dimensions:
-
- Article 21: Life and Liberty: The judgment underscores that Article 21 protects the autonomy of adults to make personal choices regarding residence and intimate relationships. The court emphasised that fundamental rights cannot be made contingent upon formal marital status.
- Domestic Violence Law Interpretation: The bench also referred to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which extends legal protection to women in “domestic relationships” without requiring marriage, indicating that Indian law recognises non-marital cohabitation in certain contexts.
- Article 21: Life and Liberty: The judgment underscores that Article 21 protects the autonomy of adults to make personal choices regarding residence and intimate relationships. The court emphasised that fundamental rights cannot be made contingent upon formal marital status.
Concerns:
Social Morality vs. Legal Rights
While reiterating that live-in relationships are legal, the court acknowledged the continuing social stigma and moral debate surrounding such relationships in India. Critics argue that endorsing such arrangements without formal legal recognition may create complications related to property rights, maintenance, inheritance, and the legitimacy of children. In contrast, proponents assert that adults have an inherent right to choose their partners without state or societal interference.
Significance of the Ruling:
-
- Legal Clarity: Reaffirms that live-in relationships are not illegal and upholds adult autonomy under Article 21.
- Protection from Harassment: Ensures enforcement of constitutional rights for couples facing societal or familial hostility.
- Gender and Personal Liberty: Particularly safeguards women, affirming that fundamental rights override marital status.
- Legal Clarity: Reaffirms that live-in relationships are not illegal and upholds adult autonomy under Article 21.
Conclusion:
The Allahabad High Court’s order strengthens constitutional morality and personal freedom by recognising live-in relationships as legal and directing state protection for adult couples facing threats. It highlights the judiciary’s role in upholding individual autonomy against social and familial coercion.
