Major adults’ choice of life partner is protected under Article 21 against unlawful interference.

The petitioners, both stated to be majors, were in a consensual live-in relationship and were residing together voluntarily.

They expressed their intention to solemnize and register their marriage under the applicable provisions of the Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand.

Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, relatives of petitioner no. 1, allegedly opposed the relationship and proposed marriage and were alleged to have threatened the petitioners.

The petitioners therefore approached the High Court seeking protection of their life, personal liberty, and peaceful existence.

Petitioner no. 1 personally stated before the Court that she was a major, was residing with petitioner no. 2 of her own free will, and had not been subjected to force, coercion, threat, undue influence, or inducement.

Whether major individuals residing together consensually and intending to marry are entitled to protection of their life and personal liberty against unlawful interference, threats, or coercion.

Whether the police authorities should be directed to assess the alleged threat perception and take protective measures if a real and imminent threat exists.

The Court applied Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects an adult’s 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, recognising that major individuals are entitled to choose their partners and that the State must protect their life and personal liberty against unlawful interference.

The Court further proceeded on the principle that no person may take the law into their own hands or subject individuals to unlawful interference, intimidation, harassment, or coercion.

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

Petitioner no. 1’s voluntary statement established that her cohabitation with petitioner no. 2 was free from coercion or undue influence and that she intended to marry him.

Applying Article 21 and the principle in Lata Singh, the Court held that the petitioners’ relationship and personal choices attracted constitutional protection.

However, without adjudicating the inter se rights of the parties or the validity of the proposed marriage, the Court limited the relief to a direction for an assessment of the alleged threat and appropriate police protection if the threat was found to be real and imminent.

If a real and imminent threat was found, the police were directed to provide adequate protection in accordance with law and to prevent any person from unlawfully interfering with, intimidating, harassing, or coercing the petitioners on account of their relationship.

The Court expressly declined to express any opinion on the parties’ inter se rights or the validity of the proposed marriage.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.