An adult’s choice of life partner is protected under Article 21 against unlawful interference.

The petitioners, both majors, stated that they had been in a consensual relationship for approximately five years and had been residing together in a live-in relationship for about two months.

The parents of petitioner no. 1 opposed the relationship and proposed marriage and allegedly extended threats, giving rise to an apprehension of interference with the petitioners’ life, personal liberty, and peaceful existence.

Both petitioners appeared before the Court and were identified by counsel. Petitioner no. 1 stated that she was a major, was residing with petitioner no. 2 voluntarily, and had acted without force, coercion, threat, undue influence, or inducement.

They therefore sought protection from the competent authorities.

Whether major individuals who voluntarily choose to reside together and intend to marry are entitled to protection of their life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution

Whether the police authorities should assess the alleged threat perception and take appropriate protective measures against unlawful interference, intimidation, harassment, or coercion

The Court applied Article 21 of the Constitution of India, recognizing that a major person has the protected autonomy to make personal-life choices, including the choice of a life partner.

It relied on Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475, for the principle that individuals choosing their life partners are entitled to protection of their life and personal liberty and that private persons cannot take the law into their own hands.

The Court also recognized that the relief sought was limited to protection and did not require adjudication of the inter se rights of the parties or the validity of the proposed marriage.

Both petitioners were undisputedly majors and competent to make decisions concerning their personal lives.

Petitioner no. 1’s unequivocal statement that she was voluntarily residing with petitioner no. 2, without coercion or undue influence, established that the relationship and proposed marriage involved the exercise of constitutionally protected personal autonomy.

Applying Article 21 and the principle in Lata Singh, the Court held that opposition by the parents could not justify unlawful interference with the petitioners’ life, liberty, or peaceful existence.

However, since the Court did not determine the validity of the proposed marriage or the parties’ inter se rights, it directed the local police to independently examine the representation and assess whether a real and imminent threat existed.

If a real and imminent threat was found, the police authorities were directed to provide appropriate protection in accordance with law.

The police were further directed to ensure that the private respondents or any other person did not unlawfully interfere with, intimidate, harass, coerce, or otherwise take the law into their own hands against the petitioners.

The Court expressly left open the inter se rights of the parties and the validity of the proposed marriage. The writ petition and pending applications, if any, were accordingly disposed of.