The Rajasthan High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati has held that neither the State nor the society can intrude into the private lives of two adult individuals who seek to indulge in a live-in relationship even if one of the partners is legally married to someone else. The Court was adjudicating upon a petition moved by a couple in a live-in relationship seeking police protection from harassment by their family members. (Leela v. State of Rajasthan )
The bench observed, "It is well- settled that it is not in the Court's domain to intrude upon an individual's privacy. Any scrutiny or remark upon the so-called morality of an individual's relationship and blanket statements of condemnation especially in matters where it is not called into question, to begin with, would simply bolster an intrusion upon one's right to choice and condone acts of unwarranted moral policing by the society at large."
Facts of the case
The petitioner is in a live-in relationship with the petitioner even when she was married to one. Petitioner 1 alleged in the petition that due to continuous harassment and violence, resulting in her giving birth to a girl child, she had to make a choice of entering into a live-in relationship to live life with liberty and dignity. The present petition was filed to seek protection, as a right to life is a fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and protection of the right to life is imbibed in the same, and thus, such fundamental right cannot be done away with, except by due process of law.
Issues before the court
(i) Whether the State ought to intervene in the personal relationships of adult citizens?
(ii) As to what would prevail, in case there is a conflict between law and morality; and
(iii) Whether the State, having a duty of protecting its citizens, is having any kind of restrictions, reservations or exceptions?
Contention of the Parties
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the live-in relationship agreement has been drawn on a stamp paper and the same is duly notarized and attested. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submitted that both the petitioners, being major, have agreed to live together in live-in relationship with their free will and consent.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the only prayer made by the petitioners in the present petition is to seek protection, as a right to life is a fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and protection of the right to life is imbibed in the same, and thus, such fundamental right cannot be done away with, except by due process of law.
Learned Public Prosecutor, however opposed the present petition on the ground that the petitioners are not having a relationship, which is recognized by law, and therefore, any kind of protection, if given by this Court, would be against the settled principles of law.
Couts Observations and Judgment
The court at the very outset relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India wherein the Apex Court while enunciating upon the principle of autonomy had held that any surrender of one's autonomy to another must be willful, and their intimacy and privacy is a matter of their choice. It was further held that such autonomy inevitably forms part of the dignity of an individual.
The Court observed that parens patriae jurisdiction must be exercised only in those cases where persons are incapable of asserting a free will such as minors or persons of unsound mind. Thus, the State not the society has the right to intrude into the private lives of individuals and make determinations regarding the suitability of partners.
The Court opined, "The exercise of that jurisdiction should not transgress into the area of determining the suitability of partners to a marital tie. That decision rests exclusively with the individuals themselves. Neither the state nor society can intrude into that domain. The strength of our Constitution lies in its acceptance of the plurality and diversity of our culture. Intimacies of marriage, including the choices which individuals make on whether or not to marry and on whom to marry, lie outside the control of the state. Courts as upholders of constitutional freedoms must safeguard these freedoms. The cohesion and stability of our society depend on our syncretic culture. The Constitution protects it. Courts are duty-bound not to swerve from the path of upholding our pluralism and diversity as a nation".
Furthermore, it was observed that interference by the State in such matters has a 'chilling effect' on the exercise of freedom of individuals. Such a chilling effect often has a 'pernicious tendency' to prevent individuals from exercising their liberty out of fear, it was further opined.
The Court added, "Public spectacles involving a harsh exercise of State power prevent the exercise of freedom, by others in the same milieu. Nothing can be as destructive as freedom and liberty. Fear silences freedom."
It was further noted that in addition to the responsibility of Courts to uphold principles of constitutional morality, there exists a parallel duty to not infringe upon the personal relationship between two free-willed adults.
The Court remarked, "The Apex Court has laid down in no uncertain terms that the emphasis to be given to public morality is minuscule when they are in conflict with constitutional morality, and that the Courts must uphold constitutional morality and rely on the same rather than obscure notions of societal morality, which have no legal tenability".
The public morality cannot be allowed to overshadow constitutional morality, particularly when the legal tenability of the right to protection is paramount, it was opined further.
The Court further referred to the Supreme Court judgment in K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India wherein it had been held in no uncertain terms that privacy includes at its core, the preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation.
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Joseph Shine v. Union of India and observed that the institution of marriage need not be a private space devoid of constitutional rights.
Enumerating upon the need to uphold due process and refrain from facilitating acts of moral policing, the Court observed, "Even if any illegality or wrongfulness has been committed, the duty to punish vests solely with the State, that too in attune with due process of law. In no circumstance can the State bypass due process, permit or condone any acts of moral policing or mob mentality. When the Right to life and liberty is even guaranteed to convicted criminals of serious offences, there can be no reasonable nexus to not grant the same protection to those in "legal/illegal relationship".
The bench further held that the right to claim protection under Article 21 of the Constitution is a constitutional mandate and that such a right cannot be waived off even if the person seeking protection is guilty of an immoral, unlawful or illegal activity.
The Court however refused to delve into the sanctity of relationships and accordingly concluded, "This Court finds itself firmly tied down to the principle of individual autonomy, which cannot be hampered by societal expectations in a vibrant democracy. The State's respect for the individual independent choices has to be held high."
Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
