While adjudicating on a writ petition filed by a lesbian couple, the Punjab and Haryana High Court noted that every person in the territory of India has an inherent and indefeasible fundamental right to life flowing from Article 21 and it does not stop applying to people of the same gender who have decided to live together.
Brief Facts:
In the present case, two young adult females who have declared their love and fondness for each other, have been living together for the past four years have approached the high court by invoking its writ jurisdiction, and are seeking protection through the state by invoking their fundamental rights of life guaranteed under article 21.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court noted that the petitioners are above 18 years of age and are adults who have all the legal rights to live as they desire, as long as it does not violate any law. The court then noted that the claim of the two females about their fondness for each other and living together is prima facie not a violation of any law in force. The court further noted that Love, attraction, and fondness have no boundaries, not even the boundary of gender. However, some segments of societies cannot keep pace with the boldness of expression, courage not to be subservient, and the rapidly changing ethos and lifestyles that Gen-Z and millennials might like to embrace or follow, including openly proclaiming their attraction towards persons of similar gender. The court further emphasized that Article 21 of the constitution does not cease to apply when people of the same gender decide to live together and every person in the territory of India has an inherent and indefeasible fundamental right to life flowing from Article 21 of India’s constitution, and the State is duty-bound to protect life. The court then also made a reference to the case of Mohd Arif @ Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India. Further, the court noted that if the allegations of the apprehension of threat to the lives of the petitioner turn out to be true then it might lead to irreversible loss. Accordingly, the court concluded that it is appropriate that the concerned Superintendent of Police, SHO, or any officer to whom such powers have been delegated provide appropriate protection to the petitioners.
The decision of the Court:
The petition was allowed and the court ordered that at least two female police officials shall be provided for the protection of the petitioners for two weeks.
Case Title: Pooja and Another v. State of Punjab and Others
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Anoop Chitkara
Case no.: CRWP No.8041 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Japsehaj Singh, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
