On live-in couples, the HC is wrong

The Punjab and Haryana High Court (HC)’S recent ruling, refusing to grant protection to a young couple allegedly facing harassment from the woman’s family, is flawed, both in terms of earlier judicial precedents and constitutional rights. The court said that a live-in relationship could disturb the social fabric of society and was morally and socially wrong. This goes against the view of the Supreme Court (SC), which held, in an earlier case, that the assertion of choice is an “insegregable facet of liberty and dignity”. In fact, the Punjab and Haryana HC last year had remarked in a protection petition filed by a couple that the hearing need not preach on morality or human behaviour.

The couple apprehended a threat to their lives — a legitimate plea given the frequency of so-called honour killings. The question before the court was about the protection to be offered to this couple to safeguard their right to life and liberty, not the ethics of live-in relationships which have been deemed legitimate. The apex court has, in the past, issued directives to states to protect couples who have chosen their partners against the wishes of their families, and even provide them safe houses. Unfortunately, HC did not follow suit.

The judiciary must stand with the freedom of consenting adults, instead of weighing in on the side of oppressive social structures and illegal family diktats. It must respect the right of adults to choose their partners and be in a relationship in any form they deem fit. The couple in question — to reiterate, both are above 18 — must be accorded protection from any threat of violence, and HC ruling must be challenged and reversed at the earliest.