An adult’s choice of life partner is protected under Article 21; police must address real, imminent threats.

The petitioners, both adults, stated that they had been in a consensual relationship for approximately seven years and intended to marry under the Special Marriage Act.

Petitioner No. 2 was residing with Petitioner No. 1 voluntarily and without force, coercion, threat, or undue influence. Her parents, brothers, and other relatives—Respondent Nos. 4 to 15—allegedly opposed the relationship and threatened the petitioners, leading them to seek protection of their life and personal liberty from the High Court.

Both petitioners appeared before the Court and were identified by counsel; Petitioner No. 2 reaffirmed her voluntary decision to reside with Petitioner No. 1 and her intention to marry him.

Whether two major individuals in a consensual relationship are entitled to seek protection of their life and personal liberty when relatives allegedly threaten them because of their relationship and proposed marriage.

Whether the police should assess the alleged threat perception and provide protection if a real and imminent threat to the petitioners’ life or liberty is found.

The Court applied Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects an adult’s autonomy and right 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, recognising that major individuals have the liberty to choose their partners and are entitled to protection against unlawful interference by family members or others.

The Court also acknowledged the petitioners’ stated intention to solemnize or register their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, without expressing any opinion on the validity of the proposed marriage.

The Court found that both petitioners were majors and competent to make decisions concerning their personal lives.

Petitioner No. 2’s statement in open court that she was residing with Petitioner No. 1 voluntarily, without coercion or undue influence, established that the relationship and cohabitation were based on her free choice.

Applying the autonomy principle under Article 21 and the protection recognised in Lata Singh, the Court held that alleged opposition by relatives could not justify unlawful threats, intimidation, harassment, or coercive interference.

However, instead of granting unconditional police protection, the Court directed the Station House Officer to independently examine the petitioners’ representation and assess whether a genuine and imminent threat existed.

If a real and imminent threat to their life or liberty was found, the police were directed to take appropriate protective measures in accordance with law.

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

The Court expressly refrained from adjudicating the inter se rights of the parties or the validity of the proposed marriage.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.