Tribune News Service
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, August 17
Love, attraction, and fondness have no boundaries, and not even the boundary of gender, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted, while issuing a protection order on a plea filed by two young women in a live-in relationship.
The high court also reinforced the principle that every individual, regardless of sexual orientation, was entitled to the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. Justice Anoop Chitkara made it clear that Article 21 of the Constitution on protection of life and personal liberty did not cease to apply when people of the same gender decided to live together. Every person in the territory of India had an inherent and indefeasible fundamental right to life flowing from Article 21, and the State was duty-bound to protect life.
In the judgment being viewed as a significant step towards recognising and protecting the rights of individuals in same-sex relationships, Justice Chitkara observed it remained undisputed that the petitioners were above 18. As such, they were adults having all legal rights to live as they desired, so long they did not violate any law.
Their claim of fondness for each other and being together in a live-in relationship did not violate any provision of law in force. “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 the millennial might like to embrace or follow, including openly proclaiming their attraction towards persons of similar gender,” Justice Chitkara observed.
The matter was placed before Justice Chitkara after the petitioners through counsel Japsehaj Singh sought protection from the state, invoking their Fundamental Rights under Article 21. The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the petitioners had been staying together in a live-in relationship for the past four years.
Addressing the concerns about potential threats to their lives, Justice Chitkara asserted it would be appropriate that the superintendent of police, the SHO, or any officer concerned provided appropriate protection to the petitioners. At least two women police officials would be deputed for their protection for two weeks.
The protection might be discontinued even before the prescribed period’s expiry at their request if they no longer required it. After that, the officers concerned would extend the protection on a day-to-day analysis of the ground realities or upon their oral or written request. Justice Chitkara clarified that the order would not confer blanket immunity in any criminal case and would not come in the way if their interrogation was required in any cognizable case.
