Introduction

The case of Sarabjeet Kaur And Another v. State Of Punjab And Others was adjudicated by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on January 7, 2022. This criminal writ petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking judicial intervention to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners who were in a live-in relationship. The petitioners, Sarabjeet Kaur and another individual, both previously married but without a formal divorce from their respective spouses, intended to marry each other post-divorce. The central issues revolved around the legal recognition of live-in relationships and the protection of individuals in such arrangements from threats to their safety and freedom.

Summary of the Judgment

The Punjab & Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Vikas Bahl, recognized live-in relationships as legitimate under the Constitution of India, thereby entitling individuals in such relationships to the same protections of life and liberty as those who are formally married. The court referenced previous judgments, notably Pardeep Singh v. State of Haryana and Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, which had granted protection to individuals in live-in relationships. In this case, despite the absence of formal divorce from previous spouses, the court directed the respondent to assess the threat perception outlined in the petitioners' representation and take appropriate action to safeguard their lives and freedoms. The court refrained from delving into the legality of the relationship itself, focusing solely on the protection aspect.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively relied on two significant precedents:

• Pardeep Singh v. State of Haryana (CRWP-4521-2021): This case established that individuals in live-in relationships are entitled to equal protection under the law. The court emphasized that live-in relationships are not prohibited and do not constitute any offense, thus meriting the same legal safeguards as formal marriages.
• Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab (CRWP-7874-2021): Although the divorce petition in this case was dismissed, the court still granted protection to the individuals involved, highlighting the imperative to protect life and liberty irrespective of the marital status.

Additionally, the court referenced Ishrat Bano v. State of Punjab (LPA-769-2021), which dismissed the petition due to the insufficiency of one-sided divorce documents but reiterated the importance of protecting life and liberty, thereby underscoring that the relationship's legality does not impede the provision of protection if there is an imminent threat.

Legal Reasoning

The court grounded its reasoning in the fundamental principles enshrined in the Indian Constitution. It underscored that the Constitution is the supreme law, with the right to life and liberty being a basic feature. This right encompasses the freedom to choose one's partner and to live with them, whether through marriage or a live-in relationship. The court acknowledged the evolving social norms where live-in relationships have gained acceptance beyond metropolitan areas, thus necessitating equal legal protection.

The judiciary's role was delineated as ensuring that no individual resorts to extrajudicial measures, such as taking the law into their own hands, to resolve disputes related to personal relationships. By directing the respondent to consider the representation and assess threats, the court emphasized proactive protection without prejudicing the legal proceedings related to the relationship's legitimacy.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the legal recognition and protection of live-in relationships in India, aligning with a progressive interpretation of individual rights. By affirming that such relationships are entitled to constitutional protections, the court sets a precedent that could influence future cases involving domestic disputes, protection orders, and personal freedoms. Moreover, it signals to law enforcement and legal practitioners the necessity to treat live-in relationships with the same seriousness as traditional marriages when it comes to safeguarding individuals' lives and liberties.

The decision also carries implications for the legal discourse surrounding the validity of live-in relationships and their social acceptance. It may encourage more individuals in similar circumstances to seek legal protection without the stigma or hesitation often associated with non-formalized relationships.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Live-In Relationship: A non-marital relationship where two individuals choose to live together and share a domestic life without formalizing their union through marriage. Such relationships are recognized legally in India, provided they exhibit mutual consent and stability akin to that of a married couple.

Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India: These articles empower High Courts and the Supreme Court, respectively, to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose. Writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari fall under these provisions.

Writ Petition: A formal written order issued by a higher court directing a lower court or authority to perform a specific act or refrain from doing something. In criminal cases, such writs can seek protection or enforcement of rights against unlawful actions.

Prima Facie: A Latin term meaning "on its face" or "at first glance." It refers to the establishment of a legally required rebuttable presumption, meaning that the evidence presented is sufficient to prove a case unless disproved.

Conclusion

The judgment in Sarabjeet Kaur And Another v. State Of Punjab And Others is a landmark decision that underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the constitutional rights of individuals, irrespective of their marital status. By extending protection to those in live-in relationships, the court acknowledged the changing societal dynamics and ensured that the right to life and liberty is universally safeguarded. This case not only reinforces the legal standing of live-in relationships but also paves the way for more inclusive and equitable treatment of diverse personal relationships under Indian law.

Ultimately, the court's balanced approach—protecting individual rights without passing judgment on the legality of the relationship—sets a precedent for future cases, promoting a legal environment that respects personal freedoms and the rule of law.