The Right To Live-In Relationships

High courts are placing so-called social norms above individual choices despite a key SC ruling

- Robin David

There can’t be anything more important than protecting the life and liberty of an individual, when weighed against social norms that may threaten these basic constitutional rights. And yet, our judges often refuse to protect couples in live-in relationships when they approach courts against threats from their families. Many judges believe they are duty-bound to uphold social values and customs and leave the couples to fend for themselves, often in the face of grave danger.

SC said, protect couples from threats

The Supreme Court, however, ended all arguments in an order in June when it told police officers in Punjab’s Tarn Taran district to protect a live-in couple whose plea for protection was turned down by the Punjab and Haryana high court.

The HC had rejected the plea because it found live-in relationships “morally and socially not acceptable”. SC disagreed and ordered: “Needless to state that since it concerns life and liberty, the SSP is required to act expeditiously in accordance with law, including the grant of any protection to the petitioners in view of the apprehensions/threats.”

The message was clear: you may frown upon live-in relationships, but you can’t refuse such couples protection. The right to life and liberty takes precedence over social norms in such cases.

But Allahabad HC said, don’t hurt social fabric