High Court held State must protect fundamental rights under Article 21 for persons in live-in relationships. Petitioners to approach SHO with grievance; SHO to analyze threat and provide security if necessary.
Petitioners directed to appear before SHO with representation to seek security/reassurance against threat.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 71/2023
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. PradeepParihar |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Gaurav Singh,PP |
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
16/01/2023
(2 of 4) [CRLW-71/2023]
necessary directions to the official respondents to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners on the ground that they are facing grave threat of life and liberty at the hands of private respondents.
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No. 5045/2021, decided on 15.09.2021) :-
“30. It is sufficiently clear to this Court that the Hon’ble Apex Court’s standpoint is that there exists a duty of the State to protect and safeguard all fundamental rights, unless taken away by due process of law. 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 an “legal/illegal relationships”.
31. Had there been a question before this Court with regards the morality/ legality of live- in relationships and matters connected thereto, then perhaps the
(3 of 4)
[CRLW-71/2023]
answer would have required more deliberation along those lines. However, in the context of the limited question this Court is posed with pertaining to the application of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it is clear that the right to claim protection under this Article is a constitutional mandate upon the State and can be availed by all persons alike. There arises no question of this right to be waived off even if the person seeking protection is guilty of an immoral, unlawful or illegal act, as per the precedent law cited of the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, in this case, this Court does not wish to delve into the sanctity of relationships.
32. 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.
33. This Court fully values the principle that at all junctures constitutional morality has to have an overriding impact upon societal morality. This Court cannot sit back and watch the transgression or dereliction in the sphere of fundamental rights, which are basic human rights.
The public morality cannot be allowed to overshadow the constitutional morality, particularly when the legal tenability of the right to protection is paramount.
34. This Court is duty bound to act as a protector of the rights of the individuals, which are under siege with the clear intention of obstructing the vision of Constitution.”
(4 of 4)
[CRLW-71/2023]
in turn hear the grievance of the petitioners, and after analyzing the threat perceptions, if necessitated, may pass necessary orders to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
C-1-nirmala/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the State is constitutionally obligated to provide security under Article 21 to individuals facing threats arising from live-in relationships despite illicit conduct allegations.
Whether principles of individual autonomy and constitutional morality override public morality in granting protection under Article 21.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Leela & Anr. vs State of RajasthanExplained¶37
Leela & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 5045/2021)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Taruna D/o Veera Ram Sharma W/o Shri Surendra Sankhla
Surendra Sankhla S/o Anda Ram Sankhla
State Of Rajasthan
Superintendent Of Police, Jodhpur
Station House Officer, Police Station Balesar-Satta
Veera Ram S/o Jhoomar Ramji
Dr. Pushendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
