Denial of granting protection to a couple who are in a live-in relationship only because it is socially and morally unacceptable. is it justified on the part of Punjab and Haryana High Court? The boy and the girl had been in a living relationship that goes against the girl’s parents will.
The couple asked for protection from the court for their life and liberty after being frightened by their families. Unfortunately, they were denied protection. the denial of their right under Article 21, in this case, is inappropriate. The judgment by the court seizes their identity as per Article 21 as well as the right to “life or liberty”.Article 21 declares that every individual has the right to their life or personal liberty. Therefore to secure their right the couple moved before the Punjab and Haryana High Court for the protection under Article 21, which is dismissed by the court on the ground of social and moral unacceptability. while rejecting the petition, the high court interpreted that the term “person” means those who are recognized by law as being capable of having legal rights and being bound by legal duties, not a couple. After getting married, a man and woman are considered capable of having legal rights and duties known as rights in the institution of marriage. But only when the marriage has been done as per their respective marriage laws in force in India.
The denial of the right to life and liberty is completely inappropriate in the law. Since no law in India criminalizes pre-marriage, it would be more like legislation by the judiciary to hold pre-marriage illegal based on social morals. There is no force of law in an opinion that has been embraced by the conservative majoritarian masses of India who find it illegitimate. The decision rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High court erred in ascertaining the aforesaid point. In place of assistance, the couple became the subject of discrimination held by the conservative majoritarian masses.

You must be logged in to post a comment.