Rajasthan High Court: In a petition, filed by a 20-year-old girl and 19-year-old boy who are in a live-in relationship, seeking a writ of mandamus to protect their life and liberty, a single-judge bench of Arun Monga, J., reaffirmed the constitutional protection of life and liberty under Article 21 extends to individuals in live-in relationships, regardless of their marital status or age. The Court directed the Superintendents of Police to verify the facts and provide protection to the petitioners.
“Right to human life is to be treated on much higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen being minor or major.”
In the instant matter, the petitioners, a young couple, approached the court seeking a writ of mandamus to protect their life and liberty, which they claimed were under threat from the relatives of petitioner 1 (20-year-old girl). The petitioners are in a live-in relationship and plan to marry once petitioner 2 (19-year-old boy) attains the legal marriageable age. However, the relatives of petitioner 1 (respondents 6 to 9) are opposed to this relationship and have been issuing threats. Despite approaching the police for protection, no action was taken, leading to the filing of the present writ petition. The main issue in hand is that whether the petitioners are entitled to protection of their life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, despite not being of marriageable age and being in a live-in relationship.
The petitioners argued that their fundamental right to life and liberty, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, was being threatened by private respondents. It was emphasised that the issue is not about the validity of their relationship or marriage but about their right to seek protection from threats.
The Court held that the petitioners’ fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 stands on a much higher pedestal and must be protected, regardless of their marital status or age. The Court held that,
“Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21 of Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal. Being sacrosanct under the Constitutional Scheme it must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties.”
The Court cited several precedents where protection was granted to individuals in live-in relationships or those who had not yet reached the legal marriageable age. The Court emphasized that the State has a constitutional obligation to protect the life and liberty of all citizens, including those in live-in relationships, even if they are minors.
The Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur Rural, and the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara, to verify the contents of the petition and the threat perception and if the case deemed fit, provide the necessary protection to the petitioners. The Court disposed of any pending applications.
[Rekha Meghwanshi v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 2555, Decided on 21-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Rishabh Handa, Counsel for the Petitioners
Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Constitution of India HERE
