The Rajasthan High Court ruled that consenting adults have the right to live in a live-in relationship without marriage, citing Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Table of Contents

Introduction

The‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‍‍‌ Rajasthan High Court, in its landmark judgment, has paved the way for individual freedom and personal autonomy by recognizing the constitutional right of live-in relationships of consenting adults. The Court held that even if such relationships are widely discussed in society, these fall within the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which is a fundamental right.

The verdict is in harmony with a number of liberal rulings by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, which have declared that adults have the sole discretion of their personal relationships and living arrangements. Apart from this, the verdict also speaks about social stigma, police interference, and the necessity of protecting couples from torture.

Case Background

The case came before the Rajasthan High Court by a couple who were in a consensual live-in relationship and requested police protection. They claimed that their relatives were threatening them, harassing them, and might potentially use violence against them.

The local law enforcement said that they would not take any action, as the couple was not married, and that live-in relationships were considered immoral by society. Therefore, the couple took the step of filing a petition, in which they claimed it is their basic right to cohabit. The Court saw the problem as an opportunity to review the rights enshrined in the Constitution and personal choices, as well as the gradual judicial recognition of live-in relationships in ‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‍‍‌India.

Key Observations of the Rajasthan High Court

Live-In Relationships Are Not Illegal

The Court clarified that a live-in relationship involving two consenting adults is neither prohibited nor illegal under Indian law. There is no statutory provision that criminalizes or restricts such a relationship.

Article 21 Protects Personal Liberty and Autonomy

Article 21 guarantees every individual the right to:

Life
Personal liberty
Privacy
Dignity
Freedom of choice in personal relationships

The Court emphasized that choosing a partner or choosing to cohabit without marriage is a matter of individual autonomy protected by the Constitution.

Adults Have the Right to Choose Their Partner

Once individuals have attained the age of majority, they have full legal capacity to:

Decide whom to live with
Enter into a relationship of their choice
Refuse parental control over personal matters

The Court warned authorities and families against interfering with such decisions.

Police Must Provide Protection When Requested

The Court directed that police cannot deny protection to couples simply because their relationship is unconventional or socially unacceptable. The role of the police is to ensure safety—not to judge morality.

Social Morality Cannot Override Constitutional Morality

A significant part of the judgment highlighted that the state cannot enforce “social morality” on citizens. Instead, governance must be rooted in constitutional morality, which upholds fundamental rights, equality, and dignity.

Legal Basis for the Judgment

Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Article 21 has been expansively interpreted by the Supreme Court to include:

Right to privacy
Right to autonomy
Right to choose a partner
Right to cohabit without fear

The Rajasthan High Court relied heavily on these interpretations.

Supreme Court Precedents on Live-In Relationships

Several landmark rulings support live-in relationships:

Lata Singh v. State of UP (2006)

The Supreme Court held that adults have full freedom to marry or live with anyone of their choice.

Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010)

The Court recognized that live-in relationships, though unconventional, are not illegal and cannot attract criminal liability.

Indra Sarma v. VKV Sarma (2013)

The court acknowledged live-in relationships as valid relationships under certain circumstances and extended protection under the Domestic Violence Act.

Puttaswamy (Privacy) Judgment (2017)

The right to privacy includes personal choices about one’s body, relationships, and residence.

These precedents form the backbone of the Rajasthan High Court’s ruling.

Impact of the Judgment

Strengthening of Individual Freedom

The decision reinforces the understanding that adults have complete autonomy over their intimate and personal decisions.

Protection from Harassment

Couples in live-in relationships often face:

Family pressure
Threats of violence
Social stigma
Police interference

This ruling ensures they can seek protection without fear.

Reducing Moral Policing

The judgment sends a strong message against moral policing, emphasizing that personal choices are not subject to societal approval.

Encouraging Legal Recognition of Modern Relationships

India’s judiciary continues to modernize legal interpretations to match changing social realities.

Supporting Women’s Rights

Live-in relationships, when recognized, can offer women legal protection under:

The Domestic Violence Act
Property rights (in specific circumstances)
Maintenance laws (if the relationship meets certain criteria)

Practical Implications for Couples

There‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‍‍‌ are no legal penalties for adults living together.
Authorities have to protect the couple if they are exposed to threats.
Mother and father are not allowed to prevent the cohabitation of adults who have given their consent by law.
Partners may apply to the court for security and ‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‍‍‌confidentiality.

Social and Cultural Significance

The‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‍‍‌ judging of live-in relationships can be considered a relapse in certain areas. However, it is a reality in several parts of India. A stigma of this kind implies moving from traditional social expectations to acceptance of individual freedom. It also signifies that the recognition of modern relationships and respect for individual dignity are becoming more and more ‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‍‍‌important.