NiklasPqy606: Created The Info V1

2026-02-23T20:30:00Z

Created The Info V1

New page

{{Short description|Indian LGBT Rights Case}}
{{Infobox court case
| name = Ujjawal v. State of Haryana
| judges = Anil Kshetarpal {{Abbr|J.|Justice}}
| keywords = [[Cohabitation|Cohabitation Rights]], [[Same-sex relationship|Same-sex Relationship]]
| opinions = Refused to provide police protection to a couple facing threat to their lives and personal liberty, citing potential disruption to "social fabric of the society."
| related actions =
| subsequent actions =
| Overturned previous case =
| prior actions =
| concur/dissent =
| dissenting =
| concurring =
| decision by = Anil Kshetarpal {{Abbr|J.|Justice}}
| number of judges = 1
| court = [[Punjab and Haryana High Court]]
| Concurrence =
| JoinPlurality =
| Plurality =
| citations = {{URL|1=https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/punjab-haryana-live-in-relationship-393398.pdf|2={{Abbr|CRWP. No.|Criminal Writ Petition Number}} 4268 of 2021}}
| date decided = 12 May 2021
| full name = Ujjawal {{Abbr|&|and}} {{Abbr|Anr.|Another}} versus State of Haryana {{Abbr|&|and}} {{Abbr|Ors.|Others}}
| italic title =
}}'''Ujjawal {{Abbr|&|and}} {{Abbr|Anr.|Another}} versus State of Haryana''' '''{{Abbr|&|and}} {{Abbr|Ors.|Others}}''' '''(2021)''', a case where [[Punjab and Haryana High Court]], refused to provide police protection to a couple facing a threat to their lives and personal liberty, citing potential disruption to "social fabric of the society."<ref name=":6">{{Cite news |last=Sarkar |first=Dr Subhradipta |title=Judicial fickleness: P&H high court plays snakes and ladders with live-in relationship |work=The Times of India |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/sarkari-thoughts/judicial-fickleness-ph-high-court-plays-snakes-and-ladders-with-live-in-relationship/?source=app&frmapp=yes |access-date=2023-08-28 |issn=0971-8257}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Sonia |date=2021-07-26 |title=Legal status of Live-in Relationships in India: Mapping Indian Jurisprudence - Academike |url=https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/live-in-relationships-in-india/ |access-date=2022-10-08 |website=www.lawctopus.com |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite court|litigants=Ujjawal {{Abbr|&|and}} {{Abbr|Anr.|Another}} versus State of Haryana {{Abbr|&|and}} {{Abbr|Ors.|Others}}|court=[[Punjab and Haryana High Court]]|opinion=<nowiki>Criminal Writ Petition Number 4268 of 2021</nowiki>|date=12 May 2021|url=https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/punjab-haryana-live-in-relationship-393398.pdf}}</ref>

== Background ==
Ujjawal, 18 years old, and his 21-year-old partner have stated that they are engaged in a mutually consensual relationship and are currently residing together. Due to concerns over potential harm to their lives and personal liberty from Ujjawal's family members, the couple approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court to request protective measures.<ref name=":1" />

== Opinion of the Court ==
The Bench observed that Ujjawal is "barely" 18 years old. The Bench opined that if the couple's plea for safeguarding their life and personal liberty from Ujjawal's family is approved, the entire social fabric of the society would be disturbed. As a result, the Bench found no valid grounds to approve the requested protection.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" />

The verdict of the Bench noticeably lacks legal precedents, thorough analysis, and comprehensive reasoning to substantiate its conclusions.<ref name=":6" /><ref name=":2" /><ref name=":1" />

== Legal Analysis ==
The judgement contradicts the precedents set by the apex court, [[Supreme Court of India]]. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the right to choose a partner is protected under Article 21 of the [[Constitution of India|Indian Constitution]], and the constitutional rights cannot be denied on the social moral grounds.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |date=2022-06-16 |title=Can same-sex couple live together under one roof? – The Leaflet |url=https://theleaflet.in/can-same-sex-couple-live-together-under-one-roof/ |access-date=2023-08-28 |website=theleaflet.in |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Comparing Judicial precedents on Live-in relationships: Is the social fabric really pervaded? |url=https://lawbeat.in/articles/comparing-judicial-precedents-live-relationships-social-fabric-really-pervaded |access-date=2022-10-08 |website=LawBeat |date=6 June 2021 |language=en}}</ref>

=== Right to choose a partner ===
The judgement contradicts the past judgements of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has affirmed the right to choose a partner is part of the personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":0" />

In ''Shafin Jahan versus Asokan K.M. (2018)'', a two-judge of the Supreme Court, consisting of Chief Justice of India [[Dipak Misra]] and Justice [[A. M. Khanwilkar|A.M. Khanwilkar]], established that the right to choose one's spouse is inherent to Article 21 of the Constitution. While recognizing the significance of social values and morals, the court emphasized that these must not take precedence over constitutionally protected freedoms, which constitute both a fundamental human right and a constitutional right.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":0" /><ref name=":3">{{Cite court|litigants=Shafin Jahan versus Asokan K.M. {{Abbr|&|and}} {{Abbr|Ors.|Others}},|court=[[Supreme Court of India]]|opinion=Criminal Appeal {{Abbr|No|Number}} 366 of 2018|date=09 April 2018|url=https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/19702/19702_2017_Judgement_08-Mar-2018.pdf|archive-date=17 June 2025|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250617112346/https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/19702/19702_2017_Judgement_08-Mar-2018.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>

{{Quote|text=The right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees the right to life. This right cannot be taken away except through a law which is substantively and procedurally fair, just and reasonable. Intrinsic to the liberty which the Constitution guarantees as a fundamental right is the ability of each individual to take decisions on matters central to the pursuit of happiness.|source={{Abbr|para|Paragraph}} 21, {{Abbr|pp|Page Number}} 57|title=Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M.|author={{Abbr|CJI|Chief Justice of India}} [[Dipak Misra]]}}

In ''Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018)'', a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Chief Justice of India [[Dipak Misra]], Justice [[A. M. Khanwilkar|A.M. Khanwilkar]] and Justice [[Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud|D.Y. Chandrachud]] extended legal protection not only to married couples but also to unmarried couples, safeguarding them from potential threats of violence. The bench concluded that ensuring the safety of couples facing such threats is of paramount importance.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":4">{{Cite court|litigants=Shakti Vahini v. Union of India {{Abbr|&|and}} {{Abbr|Ors.|Others}},|court=[[Supreme Court of India]]|opinion=Writ Petition (Civil) No. 231 of 2010|date=27 March 2018|url=https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2010/18233/18233_2010_Judgement_27-Mar-2018.pdf}}{{Dead link|date=February 2026 |bot=InternetArchiveBot }}</ref>

=== Constitutional morality ===
{{AI-generated|section=Constitutional|date=August 2025}}
In the case of ''S.Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010),'' a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Chief Justice of India [[K. G. Balakrishnan|K.G. Balakrishnan]], Justice [[Deepak Verma (judge)|Deepak Verma]] and Justice [[B. S. Chauhan|B.S. Chauhan]], ruled against excessive interference in personal autonomy and freedom of expression, cautioning against using the pretext of upholding social morality, given the subjective nature of these moral concepts.<ref name=":5" /><ref>{{Cite court|litigants=S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal|court=[[Supreme Court of India]]|opinion=Criminal Appeal No. 913 of 2010|date=28 April 2010|url=https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/36350.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230828183115/https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/36350.pdf|url-status=bot: unknown}}</ref>
{{Quote|text=Notions of social morality are inherently subjective and the criminal law cannot be used as a means to unduly interfere with the domain of personal autonomy|author={{Abbr|J|Justice}} [[B. S. Chauhan|B.S. Chauhan]]|source={{Abbr|para|Paragraph}} 29, {{Abbr|pp|Page Number}} 32|title=S.Khushboo v. Kanniammal}}
In the case of ''[[Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India|Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)]]'', which led to the [[decriminalization of homosexuality]], a five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, emphasized the supremacy of 'constitutional morality' over 'social morality'. Justice [[Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud|D.Y. Chandrachud]], in his concurring opinion, delved into Constitutional morality and the role of Constitutional Courts in safeguarding it. Constitutional morality dictates that citizens should be well-versed in and supportive of the core values of the Constitution, such as liberty, equality, and fraternity, as these foundational principles underlie the overarching objectives of the Constitution. It's crucial to recognize that the integration of constitutional morality is an ongoing process within society, and to facilitate this progression, constitutional courts are entrusted with the task of acting as external enablers. The duty of these courts encompasses overseeing the preservation of constitutional morality, a pivotal role in creating an environment conducive to the advancement of human dignity and liberty.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="SCI2018-09-06-conclusion01a2">{{Cite court|litigants=Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice|court=[[Supreme Court of India]]|opinion=Writ Petition (Criminal) Number 76 of 2016|url=https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Judgement_06-Sep-2018.pdf|quote=|archive-date=2020-07-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200703201150/https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/14961/14961_2016_Judgement_06-Sep-2018.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>

{{Quote|text=In a constitutional democracy like ours where the rule of law prevails, [rule of law] must not be allowed to be trampled by obscure notions of social morality which have no legal tenability.|author={{Abbr|CJI|Chief Justice of India}} [[Dipak Misra]]|source={{Abbr|para|Paragraph}} 120, {{Abbr|pp|Page Number}} 79|title=[[Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India]]}}

However, the current case contradicted this established legal precedent, as Justice Anil Kshetarpal emphasized the significance of 'social morality' in his verdict.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":0" />

== Related Cases ==

=== High Court Cases ===
This section delves into relevant cases from the High Courts of India. It's important to note that judgments rendered by one High Court do not hold mandatory authority over another, but they can still be regarded as influential precedents.

==== Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh ====
{{Main articles|Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh}}

In the related case of ''[[Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh|Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020)]]'', a same-sex couple residing together, approached the [[Allahabad High Court]] seeking protection against threat to their life and liberty by family members and the immediate society. In contrast to the ''Ujjawal v. State of Haryana,'' the verdict in ''Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh'' highlighted the precedence of 'constitutional morality', and upheld Constitutional rights.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":13">{{Cite web |title=Allahabad HC Asks Shamli SP To Give Protection To a Same-Sex Couple |url=https://thewire.in/rights/allahabad-hc-shamli-sp-protection-to-same-sex-couple |access-date=2021-06-09 |website=The Wire}}</ref><ref name=":04">{{Cite court|litigants=Sultana Mirza & Anr. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.|court=[[Allahabad High Court]]|pinpoint=WRIT-C. No. 17394 of 2020|date=2 November 2020|url=https://www.newsclick.in/sites/default/files/2020-11/Allahabad-High-Court-Order_LGBTQ_Police-Protection.pdf}}</ref>

A two-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court invoked the Supreme Court precedent set by ''[[Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India|Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)]]'', establishing that sexual orientation imposes both negative and positive obligations on the state, requiring not only non-discrimination but also the acknowledgment of rights that lead to genuine fulfillment in same-sex relationships. The Bench emphasized that as a constitutional court, it is obligated to uphold Constitutional morality and protect the rights of citizens, which are jeopardized solely due to their sexual orientation, and the Bench instructed the relevant law enforcement personnel to offer essential protection and prevent any form of harassment.<ref name=":12">{{Cite web |title=Allahabad HC Asks Shamli SP To Give Protection To a Same-Sex Couple |url=https://thewire.in/rights/allahabad-hc-shamli-sp-protection-to-same-sex-couple |access-date=2021-06-09 |website=The Wire}}</ref><ref name=":04" />

{{Quote|text=This Court being a constitutional Court is duty-bound to monitor and observe the Constitutional morality as well as the rights of the citizens which are under threat only on account of the sexual orientation.|title=[[Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh]]|source={{Abbr|pp.|Page Number}} 4|author=Shashi Kant Gupta {{Abbr|J.|Justice}} and Pankaj Bhatia {{Abbr|J.|Justice}}}}

The Supreme Court of India recognized ''Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020)'' as a significant ruling by a High Court in its "Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on LGBTIQA+ Community," which addresses the challenges that marginalized queer individuals face within the justice system due to systemic marginalization.<ref name=":022" />

==== Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police ====
{{Main articles|Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police}}
In the related case of ''[[Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police|Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police (2018)]]'', Sreeja submitted a petition to the [[Kerala High Court]] seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus to compel the presentation of her same-sex romantic partner, Aruna, and ensure Aruna's liberty. In contrast to the ''Ujjawal v. State of Haryana,'' the verdict in ''Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police'' refrained from assessing the suitability of the partner and instead upheld Constitutional rights.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":5" /><ref name=":32">{{Cite web |last=Indulia |first=Bhumika |date=2018-10-20 |title=Live-in relationship of a lesbian couple is not violative of any law and is not a crime |url=https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2018/10/20/live-in-relationship-of-a-lesbian-couple-is-not-violative-of-any-law-and-is-not-a-crime/ |access-date=2023-08-16 |website=SCC Blog |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name=":06">{{Cite court|litigants=Sreeja S versus Commissioner of Police {{Abbr|&|and}} {{Abbr|Ors.|Others}}|court=[[Kerala High Court]]|opinion={{Abbr|W. P. (Crl.) No.|Writ Petition (Criminal) Number}} 372 of 2018|date=24 September 2018|url=https://hckinfo.kerala.gov.in/digicourt/citation/215800003722018_1.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>

A two-judge bench of the Kerala High Court observed that the court should abstain from evaluating the suitability of the partner, asserting that not taking action could potentially jeopardize Constitutional rights; consequently, the court issued a writ of Habeas Corpus, granting Aruna the freedom to be with Sreeja. The Bench referenced Supreme Court precedents such as ''Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas (2018)'', which established that the court cannot curtail the personal freedom of an adult under the doctrine of parens patriae; ''Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2018)'', which ruled that adults lacking legal capacity for marriage can cohabit without formal wedlock; and ''Shafin Jahan V. Asokan (2018)'', which underscored the court's role in habeas corpus petitions as ensuring the detainee's independent choice while refraining from assessing partner suitability. Additionally, the Bench relied on ''[[Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India|Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)]]'', which established that the Discrimination based on sexual orientation infringes on fundamental rights and asserted that constitutional morality should not be compromised for social morality. Furthermore, the Bench highlighted that the Indian Parliament recognizes 'live-in relationships' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005.<ref name=":32" /><ref name=":06" />

The Supreme Court of India recognized ''Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police (2018)'' as a significant ruling by a High Court in its "Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on LGBTIQA+ Community," which addresses the challenges that marginalized queer individuals face within the justice system due to systemic marginalization. The publication highlighted the observations of the High Court on aspects such as women's consent and adulthood, alongside the acknowledgment of 'live-in relationships' among same-sex couples, signifies progress in the acknowledgment of the rights of marginalized queer individuals.<ref name=":022">{{Citation |last=Supreme Court of India |title=Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on LGBTIQA+ Community |url=https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s388ef51f0bf911e452e8dbb1d807a81ab/uploads/2023/05/2023050154.pdf |pages=25 |publication-date=26 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230602010134/https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s388ef51f0bf911e452e8dbb1d807a81ab/uploads/2023/05/2023050154.pdf |publisher=Supreme Court of India |archive-date=2 June 2023 |author-link=Supreme Court of India}}</ref>

== See also ==
* [[LGBT rights in India]]
* [[Devu G v. State Of Kerala|Devu G v. State Of Kerala (2023)]]
* [[S Sushma v. Commissioner of Police|S Sushma v. Commissioner of Police (2021)]]
* [[Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India|Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)]]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}{{LGBT Rights Case Law in India|state=expanded}}{{LGBT in India|state=collapsed}}
[[Category:High courts of India cases]]
[[Category:Indian LGBTQ rights case law]]
[[Category:LGBTQ rights in India]]
[[Category:2021 in LGBTQ history]]
[[Category:2021 in Indian law]]

Ujjawal v. State of Haryana - Revision history

NiklasPqy606: Created The Info V1