Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

In a significant judgment, emphasising the sanctity of the right to life, the Rajasthan High Court has directed the state authorities to provide protection to a young couple in a live-in relationship. The court ruled that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is paramount and must be safeguarded irrespective of marital status, even if the relationship does not conform to societal norms.

Justice Arun Monga, presiding over the court, noted :“Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21 of Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal. Being sacrosanct under the Constitutional Scheme it must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties.”

The court made the observation in a case involving the petitioners, Rekha Meghwanshi (20) and Ranjeet Dutt (19), who sought the court’s intervention, alleging that their lives were in danger from Rekha’s family members. The couple, who have been in a live-in relationship for a few days, plan to marry once Ranjeet attains the legal age for marriage. However, Rekha’s parents, who oppose this relationship, have been pressuring her to marry someone else and have allegedly issued death threats against the couple. The couple approached the police for protection, but no action was taken, prompting them to file a writ petition. They argued that despite not being of marriageable age, their fundamental right to life and liberty was under threat.

The primary question before the court was whether the couple's apprehension warranted protective orders under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court held that the constitutional right to life stands above considerations of marital status, emphasising that it is the duty of the state to protect this right for all citizens, including those in live-in relationships. Citing previous judgment from the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of ‘Seema Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others’ and the Apex Court’s ruling in ‘Shakti Vahini Versus Union of India and others’, the court noted that courts have consistently granted protection to individuals in live-in relationships, regardless of whether such relationships align with societal expectations.

“It is the bounden duty of the State, as per the Constitutional obligations casted upon it, to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. Right to human life is to be treated on much higher pedestal, regardless of a citizen being minor or major. Mere fact that petitioners are not of marriageable age in the present case would not deprive them of their fundamental right, as envisaged in Constitution of India, being citizens of India,” the court said.

As a result, the court directed the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur Rural, and Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara, to assess the threat perception and provide necessary protection to the couple.

 

Cause Title: Rekha Meghwanshi v State of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1730/2024]