We are governed by Constitutional dharma: Punjab & Haryana High Court grants protection to live-in couple

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently granted police protection to a married woman and her live-in partner, stating that it was its fundamental duty to guard their lives [Jai Nrain v. State of Punjab]..While allowing the petition, Justice Anoop Chitkara reasoned that we are governed by the rule of law and follow Constitutional dharma.He explained that times were changing rapidly and that every person in India had an inherent fundamental right to life flowing from Article 21, which the State was bound to protect.“We are governed by the rule of law and follow the Constitutional dharma. In the ever-evolving society, evolving the law with it, the time is to shift perspective from didactics of the orthodox society, shackled with the strong strings of morality supported by religions to one that values an individual’s life above all,” the order recorded..The case arose when a live-in couple - a married woman and a man whose company she had voluntarily preferred - claimed that they were facing threats from the family of the former..The Single Judge was of the opinion that if the apprehension of threat to their lives was true, the same may lead to an irreversible loss to the petitioners.The Court also made it clear that it was not adjudicating on the validity of the woman’s marriage or her decision to cohabit with the petitioner, but was adhering to its fundamental duty of guarding their lives.Thus, it was found appropriate to direct the police to provide appropriate protection to the petitioners for one week from the date of the order. After this period, the protection could be extended on a day-to-day basis on the petitioners’ request or analysis of ground realities..The protection provided, however, was conditional on the petitioners not leaving their residence except for necessities, in order to protect them from the apprehended risk.“This protection is subject to the stringent condition that from the time such protection is given, the petitioners shall not go outside the boundaries of the place of their residence, except for medical necessities, to buy household necessities, and for bereavements in the families of the persons who are close to them.”.With these observations, the petition was allowed..Advocate Vishneet Singh Kathpal appeared for the petitioners while the respondents was represented by Advocate Rehatbir Singh Mann..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.