S & N.J. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

2026:RJ-JP:40322

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20082/2026
CNR: RJHC020958672026 | URN: CW / 41954U / 2026

(1) S; (2) N.J. ----Petitioners
Versus
(1) The State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur; (2) Superintendent of Police, [district withheld]; (3) SHO / Nodal Officer, Police Station [place withheld], District [district withheld]; (4)-(7) four private respondents [names withheld] ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Poonam Chand Sharma
For Respondent(s): Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta (Addl. G.A.-cum-PP)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

[NyayVidhan note: the petitioners are an adult couple in a live-in relationship who sought protection from threats by family members, so the order is stored in anonymised form. The petitioners appear by initials (S and N.J.); the private respondents (respondents 4 to 7), the petitioners' parentage, ages, addresses and localities, and the tehsil, district and police station named in the cause title are withheld here and in the PDF hosted on this site (stored from the official Rajasthan High Court PDF, hcraj file 205200200822026_1.pdf). The cause title is abridged. No 'Reportable' mark is printed. The Court's text below (paras 1-9) is as printed; page furniture is removed. The PDF is authoritative for everything not withheld.]

[Source: Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — order dated 01.10.2026.]

Order

01/10/2026

1. Petitioners are present in person.

2. Learned State Counsel appeared and accepted notices on behalf of State Respondents.

3. The present writ petition has been filed seeking protection of the life and personal liberty of the petitioners. It is submitted that both the petitioners are major and are voluntarily residing together in a live-in relationship. It is alleged that their family members and relatives are annoyed with their decision to live together and have extended threats to their life and personal liberty. The petitioner No.1 has also submitted representation to the Superintendent of Police and the Nodal Officer, but no effective action has been taken thereon.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners, being major, are entitled to make their own choice regarding their life and companionship and to live together according to their own volition, and that no person, including their family members or relatives, can interfere with their life and personal liberty.

5. The right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India encompasses an individual’s right to make choices concerning matters of personal autonomy and intimate association. In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & Ors., (2018) 16 SCC 368, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised the right of an individual to choose a partner as an integral facet of personal liberty. Hence, in considered view of this court, consenting adult couples in a live-in relationship are fully entitled to police protection because choosing a partner is a personal freedom protected by the Indian Constitution.

6. Thus, merely because the petitioners’ decision to reside together is not acceptable to their family members or relatives, the same, by itself, cannot furnish any justification for interference with their life and personal liberty. At the same time, the allegations of threat are required to be objectively examined by the competent police authority.

7. Accordingly, in view of the allegations made in the writ petition and having regard to the constitutional protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to submit a representation along with copy of this order to respondent No.3, who shall examine the representation submitted by the petitioners and enquire into the alleged threat to their life and personal liberty. In case any genuine threat perception is found, respondent No.3 shall take such necessary and appropriate steps, in accordance with law, as may be warranted for protection of the petitioners.

8. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the allegations made against any individual, and the competent police authority shall undertake the requisite enquiry objectively and in accordance with law.

9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(ANAND SHARMA),J