Rajasthan High Court Upholds Constitutional Rights Over Societal Morality in Live-In Relationships

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Constitutional Rights Over Societal Morality in Live-In Relationships

Introduction

In the case of Leela Bishnoi And Another v. State Of Rajasthan And Others, adjudicated by the Rajasthan High Court on September 15, 2021, the petitioners sought protection under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The petition addressed concerns arising from the petitioners' live-in relationship, which had led to continuous harassment and violence, thereby threatening their life and liberty. The primary parties involved included the petitioners, Leela Bishnoi and Farsa Ram Bishnoi, and the respondents, comprising the State of Rajasthan and various police authorities.

Summary of the Judgment

The Rajasthan High Court, presided over by Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, dismissed the petition seeking direct court-ordered protection from harassment related to the petitioners' live-in relationship. The court relied heavily on existing precedents that generally do not recognize live-in relationships, especially those involving an already married individual, as lawful partnerships deserving of constitutional protection. However, the judgment also delved into broader constitutional principles, emphasizing the supremacy of constitutional morality over societal norms.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court referenced several key judgments to substantiate its decision:

These precedents collectively reflect a judicial hesitance to recognize live-in relationships, especially those perceived as deviating from traditional marital norms.

Legal Reasoning

Despite adhering to the prevailing jurisprudence that does not favor the recognition of live-in relationships, the court engaged deeply with constitutional principles. Key points in the court’s reasoning include:

  • Constitutional vs. Societal Morality: The court emphasized that constitutional morality, which upholds individual rights and freedoms, should supersede societal norms and moral judgments.
  • Right to Privacy and Autonomy: Drawing from the landmark judgments like Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the court highlighted the importance of personal autonomy and privacy in intimate relationships.
  • Protection Under Article 21: The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution extends to all individuals, irrespective of the legality of their personal relationships.
  • Role of the State: The court underscored that the state has a duty to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens, and this duty cannot be negated by societal perceptions of morality.

While the court did not directly invalidate the precedents, its extensive discourse on constitutional principles signals a potential shift towards greater recognition of individual rights over traditional norms.

Impact

This judgment carries significant implications for future cases involving live-in relationships and the broader spectrum of personal freedoms:

  • Judicial Approach: The court's balanced engagement with both existing precedents and constitutional principles may encourage a more nuanced judicial approach in similar cases.
  • Protection of Rights: Reinforcing the idea that fundamental rights such as life and liberty are paramount could lead to greater judicial willingness to protect individuals against harassment, regardless of their personal relationships.
  • Legal Recognition: Although the judgment did not formally recognize live-in relationships, the emphasis on constitutional rights over societal norms could pave the way for future legal recognition and protection.

Overall, the judgment subtly shifts the focus towards constitutional morality, potentially influencing the courts to prioritize individual rights over entrenched societal norms in the future.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 482 Cr.P.C.

A section of the Criminal Procedure Code in India that grants High Courts inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Constitutional Morality

A concept where laws and decisions are guided by the principles enshrined in the Constitution, rather than by prevailing societal norms or moral standards.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India

Guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty to individuals, stating that no person shall be deprived of these rights except according to the procedure established by law.

Right to Privacy

Recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21, it encompasses the protection of personal information, autonomy in personal relationships, and the freedom from unwarranted government intrusion.

Conclusion

The Rajasthan High Court's judgment in Leela Bishnoi And Another v. State Of Rajasthan And Others underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding constitutional principles over societal norms. By emphasizing the supremacy of constitutional morality and the protection of individual rights such as life, liberty, and privacy, the court reinforces the foundational values of the Indian Constitution. This decision not only reaffirms the duty of the state to protect its citizens irrespective of their personal relationships but also signals a progressive judicial inclination towards safeguarding personal autonomy against societal prejudice. As such, this judgment holds substantial significance in the broader legal landscape, potentially influencing future rulings to prioritize constitutional rights in matters of personal liberty and relationships.

Case Details

Year: 2021
Court: Rajasthan High Court

Judge(s)

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

Comments