High Court directs Uttar Pradesh Police to ensure safety of same-sex couple in live-in relationship
The Allahabad High Court directed Uttar Pradesh Police to ensure the safety of an adult same-sex couple living together in a live-in relationship, after the couple approached the court citing threats and interference from family members.
The Bench interacted with both petitioners and satisfied itself that they were adults who had chosen to live together voluntarily, without coercion, fear, or undue influence.
The court held that being in a live-in relationship is a fundamental right of two consenting adult citizens who choose to live together by choice, and that absence of legal recognition of the relationship does not permit any third party to violate their dignity or physical safety.
The court directed that if any obstruction arises, the petitioners may approach the jurisdictional Commissioner of Police, SSP, or SP with a certified copy of the order, who must extend immediate protection after verifying that they are consenting adults living together voluntarily.
Article 21 — Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Since the 1978 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India ruling, courts have read Article 21 expansively to include the right to live with dignity, personal autonomy, and freedom to make choices about one's private and family life — the constitutional basis courts use to protect live-in relationships and consenting adult relationships generally.
The Allahabad High Court's order is grounded directly in Article 21 — it treats the couple's choice to cohabit as a fundamental right in itself, independent of whether their relationship carries any statutory recognition.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
This Constitution Bench judgment decriminalised consensual same-sex conduct between adults by reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that criminalising such conduct violated Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution.
Key Details
- Delivered 6 September 2018 by a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, overruling the Court's own earlier 2013 decision in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation which had upheld Section 377.
- Held that Section 377 remains valid only to the extent it criminalises non-consensual acts (such as bestiality or non-consensual acts); consensual sexual conduct between adults, regardless of sexual orientation, was decriminalised.
- Grounded the ruling in the right to dignity, privacy, and personal autonomy under Article 21, alongside equality (Article 14) and non-discrimination (Article 15).
Navtej Singh Johar removed the criminal-law barrier that had historically been used to harass and threaten same-sex couples; the Allahabad High Court's protection order operates within the constitutional space this 2018 judgment opened up.
Live-In Relationships as a Protected Choice — Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) and S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010)
Even before the decriminalisation of Section 377, the Supreme Court had built a line of precedent protecting the right of consenting adults to live together outside marriage, including across caste, religious, or family objections.
Key Details
- Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006): held that an adult's choice to marry or live with a partner of their own choosing is protected under Article 21, and directed police across India to protect couples facing threats from family or community over inter-caste or inter-religious relationships.
- S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr. (2010): a three-judge Bench held that a live-in relationship between consenting adults does not constitute any criminal offence and is protected under Article 21's right to life, cautioning against invoking "public morality" to criminalise private choices.
- Both rulings pre-date and, combined with Navtej Singh Johar (2018), extend to same-sex live-in couples the same constitutional protection earlier articulated for heterosexual couples.
The Allahabad High Court's reasoning — that lack of family or social approval cannot override an adult couple's right to live together — directly extends this pre-existing live-in relationship jurisprudence to a same-sex couple.
Supriyo v. Union of India (2023) — Limits of Current Recognition
In this 2023 Constitution Bench decision, the Supreme Court declined to legally recognise same-sex marriage but distinguished the right to marry (a statutory right requiring parliamentary action) from the right to cohabit, form relationships, and exercise personal autonomy (constitutional rights under Article 21 that same-sex couples already possess).
Key Details
- Decided 17 October 2023 by a five-judge Constitution Bench (Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices S.K. Kaul, S. Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli, and P.S. Narasimha), with the majority (Bhat and Kohli JJ., Narasimha J. concurring) holding that recognising marriage is a matter for Parliament, not the judiciary; Chandrachud CJI and Kaul J. dissented in part.
- The majority clarified that non-recognition of marriage does not strip same-sex couples of their right to privacy, choice, and autonomy — the same rights safeguarded by Navtej Singh Johar (2018).
- The judgment left protection of same-sex couples against harassment, violence, and social ostracism to be addressed through existing constitutional remedies (such as Article 21 writ protection) rather than a new marriage-equality framework.
The Allahabad High Court's protection order illustrates exactly the kind of relief Supriyo anticipated remaining available to same-sex couples — protection of life, liberty, and choice under Article 21 — even though the Supreme Court did not extend them a right to legal marriage.
- Constitutional basis of the order: Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), as interpreted since Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978).
- Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India: decided 6 September 2018, read down Section 377 IPC for consensual adult conduct; five-judge Constitution Bench.
- Lata Singh v. State of U.P.: decided 2006, protected adult choice in marriage/cohabitation under Article 21.
- S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr.: decided 2010, held live-in relationships between consenting adults are not a criminal offence.
- Supriyo v. Union of India: decided 17 October 2023, denied legal recognition of same-sex marriage (a matter left to Parliament) while affirming continuing Article 21 protections for privacy, choice, and autonomy.
- Protection mechanism directed by the court: petitioners may approach the Commissioner of Police/SSP/SP with a certified copy of the order for immediate protection upon verification of consenting adult status.