Introduction:
In the case titled X v. State of U.P. and 7 Others, the Allahabad High Court was approached through a writ petition by a minor child, barely one year and four months old, through her biological parents—an interfaith couple who have been in a live-in relationship since 2018. The petition was necessitated by serious threats allegedly posed by the former in-laws of the child’s mother, who began cohabiting with the child’s biological father after the death of her husband. The couple alleged repeated harassment by these private respondents and non-cooperation from local police authorities, compelling them to seek constitutional protection and the registration of an FIR.
Arguments by the Petitioners:
The petitioners, through the minor child, contended that the couple had been living peacefully in a consensual relationship since 2018, a few months after the death of the woman’s husband. The woman, having suffered emotional trauma and hostility from her former in-laws, had moved in with her current partner, with whom she shares a young child. The couple alleged that despite being majors and living consensually, they were constantly harassed and threatened by the private respondents, specifically the woman’s former in-laws. They expressed apprehension regarding their safety and stated that the threats had escalated to the point where they feared for their lives and the well-being of their child. More critically, they claimed that repeated attempts to register a first information report (FIR) against the threatening parties had been met with resistance from the police authorities. They alleged that their visits to the police station were not only unproductive but humiliating, as they were made to feel guilty for choosing to live together despite societal and religious differences. The petition emphasized the need for protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The petitioners also cited various precedents of the Supreme Court and High Courts upholding the autonomy of consenting adults to live together irrespective of their marital or religious status.
Arguments by the State and Private Respondents:
The State of Uttar Pradesh, represented through its counsel, initially questioned the maintainability of the writ petition filed through a minor. However, the Court brushed aside this objection given the substantive constitutional rights at stake. The private respondents, the woman’s erstwhile in-laws, were alleged to have remained silent in Court or failed to provide any concrete counter to the allegations made by the petitioners. The State also attempted to downplay the urgency of the petition by highlighting procedural irregularities or suggesting that alternative remedies could be availed. However, it failed to justify the police inaction or address the specific allegations of humiliation and delay in registering the FIR. The lack of proactive steps by the police in ensuring the safety of the couple further weakened the State’s position in the eyes of the judiciary.
Court’s Judgment:
A division bench comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Vipin Chandra Dixit considered the matter with significant constitutional sensitivity. The Court took judicial notice of the fact that the biological parents of the minor child belonged to different religions and had been living together for over five years, since 2018. The Court held that the Constitution grants every major citizen the liberty to choose their partner and live together irrespective of their marital or religious status. It unequivocally observed that live-in relationships between consenting adults are protected under the right to life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The bench cited various landmark judgments of the Supreme Court reinforcing this position, including the Lata Singh and Navtej Singh Johar cases. Emphasizing the constitutional scheme, the Court said, “The parents, who are major, are entitled to live together, even if they have not undergone marriage.”
Further, acknowledging the genuine apprehension of threats and the continuing police apathy, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police concerned to ensure the registration of the FIR against the private respondents if approached by the parents. Moreover, the SP was ordered to evaluate the necessity of providing security to the couple and their minor child, ensuring their safety under the law. The Court also admonished the local police authorities for their alleged refusal to register the FIR and their reported behavior in humiliating the couple. The bench concluded that a free society based on constitutional morality cannot permit such harassment, especially when the couple is merely exercising their fundamental rights. It held that disallowing or obstructing a couple’s right to cohabit amounts to a violation of their liberty and dignity, values that are fundamental to the Indian Constitution. In granting police protection, the Court also sent a strong signal against societal prejudices that continue to stigmatize interfaith or live-in relationships, especially when the parties are consenting adults.
The writ petition was accordingly allowed, and directions were issued for immediate compliance. The case stands as yet another affirmation of the judiciary’s evolving stance on personal autonomy and constitutional protections in the context of evolving social norms.