Allahabad High Court Protects Two Adult Women in Same-Sex Live-In Relationship, Orders Police Security and No Interference

The two petitioners, Farida Ansari and Pragati Kushwaha, both adult women, claimed to be in a consensual same-sex live-in relationship.

They produced their high-school mark sheets to establish their ages and appeared personally before the Court pursuant to an earlier direction.

Both stated that they had voluntarily chosen to live together without coercion, fear, or undue influence.

They alleged that private respondents, including family members, were threatening and interfering with their peaceful life and sought a writ of mandamus directing the State authorities to provide them protection under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The State opposed the petition on the basis that same-sex relationships lacked social acceptance, while conceding that an individual’s choice of partner is protected under Article 21, although same-sex marriage had no legislative recognition.

The Court applied Articles 14, 21, and 226 of the Constitution.

Article 21 protects life, personal liberty, privacy, dignity, autonomy, and the freedom to choose one’s partner and form consensual relationships.

Relying on Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1, the Court recognised sexual orientation as an intrinsic aspect of liberty, dignity, privacy, and personal autonomy, and emphasised constitutional morality over social morality.

It further relied on Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1348, particularly paragraph 149(iv), which holds that queer and LGBTQ+ persons have a right under Article 21 to form unions or relationships—mental, emotional, or sexual—flowing from privacy, choice, and autonomy, although there is no unqualified fundamental right to statutory recognition of marriage or civil union.

The Court also applied the principle that the absence of legal recognition of same-sex marriage does not authorise third parties or State authorities to interfere with the life, dignity, or physical security of consenting adults.

The Court personally examined both petitioners and found them to be adults capable of understanding the consequences of their decision.

Their statements established that they had voluntarily chosen to live together in a same-sex relationship and were not acting under pressure, fear, or undue influence.

Applying Navtej Singh Johar and Supriyo, the Court distinguished between the absence of a statutory right to have a same-sex marriage or union legally recognised and the existence of a constitutional right to maintain a consensual relationship.

Since the petitioners’ decision fell within the protection of privacy, autonomy, dignity, and personal liberty under Article 21, family members or other persons had no legal entitlement to threaten or obstruct their peaceful cohabitation.

The alleged social or traditional disapproval of same-sex relationships could not override constitutional morality or justify interference with their fundamental rights.

The Court held that the petitioners, being consenting adults, were constitutionally entitled to live together peacefully in a same-sex live-in relationship, and that no family member or other person could interfere with their relationship, threaten them, or violate their physical liberty.

If any obstruction occurred, the petitioners were directed to approach the concerned Police Commissioner, Senior Superintendent of Police, or Superintendent of Police with a certified copy of the order.

Upon verifying that they were adults and were voluntarily living together, the police authorities were directed to provide immediate protection.

The private respondents were left at liberty to seek recall of the order if the documents relied upon by the petitioners were proved to be forged or fabricated.