Police must assess threats and protect major adults in consensual relationships without adjudicating validity.

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to provide adequate protection to their life and liberty and restrain the private respondents from interfering with their consensual live-in relationship.

The petition had earlier been dismissed for want of prosecution on 3 September 2025; the petitioners thereafter filed a recall application with an application for condonation of 29 days’ delay.

The Court condoned the delay, allowed the recall application, recalled the dismissal order, and restored the writ petition to its original number.

Both petitioners asserted that they were majors and had been residing together in a consensual live-in relationship for several years, which they stated had been registered under the Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand, and the Rules framed thereunder.

Petitioner No. 2 had previously been married, and his wife had been residing separately since November 2024; a child from that marriage was stated to be residing with and being maintained by the petitioners.

The petitioners alleged threats from private respondents residing in the same locality because of their relationship.

The State acknowledged that both petitioners were majors and that Petitioner No. 2 had an earlier subsisting marriage and children.

1. Whether major individuals living together in a consensual relationship are entitled to seek protection of their life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution against threats or unlawful interference.

2. Whether the High Court should direct the competent police authority to assess the petitioners’ threat perception and provide protection without adjudicating the validity of their relationship or their inter se civil and matrimonial rights.

Article 21 of the Constitution protects the life and personal liberty of every person, and no individual may take the law into their own hands.

The Court relied on Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2006) 5 SCC 475, which recognizes a major person’s right to choose a partner and requires appropriate protection where threats arise because of that choice.

The Court also applied the principle that a proceeding seeking police protection is not the occasion to adjudicate the validity of a consensual relationship, matrimonial status, property rights, or other inter se civil or criminal claims.

The asserted registration of the relationship under the Uniform Civil Code, Uttarakhand, was considered as part of the petitioners’ factual case, without the Court determining its legal validity.

The Court found that the petitioners had placed material showing that they were majors and were residing together in a consensual live-in relationship.

Although the State pointed out Petitioner No. 2’s earlier marriage and children, the Court held that these circumstances did not justify private persons threatening, intimidating, harassing, coercing, or unlawfully interfering with the petitioners.

Consistently with Lata Singh, the Court treated the alleged threat to the petitioners’ life and liberty as a matter requiring examination by the police, while expressly declining to determine the validity of the relationship or the parties’ matrimonial and civil rights.

Accordingly, the Court directed the Station House Officer, Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar, to consider the petitioners’ representation and assess whether any real, credible, or imminent threat existed.

On merits, it disposed of the petition by directing the Station House Officer, Police Station Laksar, to examine the petitioners’ representation and assess the threat perception.

If a real, credible, or imminent threat to their life or liberty was found, appropriate protection was to be provided in accordance with law.

The police were also directed to prevent unlawful interference, intimidation, harassment, or coercion by the private respondents or any other person.

The order did not confer any property rights, validate the relationship, or affect any existing or future matrimonial, civil, criminal, or statutory remedies.