• The Allahabad High Court has ruled that live-in relationships are not illegal in India.
• The ruling strengthens a rights-based interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
  • Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
• The judgment reinforces the principles of human dignity and personal freedom.

Key Observations of the Court on Live-in Relationships

Legality

• The Court clarified that live-in relationships between consenting adults are neither criminal nor prohibited.
• Consenting adults are individuals who have legal capacity and voluntarily agree to the relationship.

Autonomy of Adults

• The Court reaffirmed that adults are free to make personal life choices.
  • Personal autonomy refers to the freedom to decide matters concerning one’s private life.
  • Such autonomy cannot be restricted due to social or familial disapproval.

State’s Constitutional Duty

• The judgment emphasized the constitutional obligation of the State to protect citizens.
• Denial of police protection in live-in relationship cases amounts to a failure of this obligation.
• The obligation arises from Article 21, which mandates protection of life and liberty.

Social Morality versus Fundamental Rights

• The Court addressed concerns related to social morality.
  • Social morality refers to prevailing societal norms and traditional beliefs.
• The Court held that social morality cannot override fundamental rights.
• These fundamental rights are guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

Evidentiary Presumption under Law

• The Court referred to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• The Court also referred to Section 119(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
• These provisions create a legal presumption of marriage.
• The presumption applies when a couple lives together for a significant period as husband and wife.
• Legal presumption means the law assumes a fact to be true unless proven otherwise.
• Courts shall apply this presumption to protect the rights of parties in live-in relationships.
• This protection is particularly significant for women.
• The presumption also safeguards children born out of live-in relationships.

Related Supreme Court Judgments

Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006)

• The Supreme Court directed State authorities to protect adults exercising their choice of partner.
• The Court strongly condemned honour-based violence.
• The judgment also condemned social harassment arising from personal choices.

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

• The Supreme Court held that Article 21 protects the right to privacy.
• The judgment recognized dignity and autonomy as core components of Article 21.
• The Court affirmed decisional freedom in personal and intimate matters.

Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. and Others (2018)

• The Supreme Court held that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21.
• The Court recognized expression of choice as a fundamental right.
• This right flows from Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.