Amidst all the chaos created by the spread of the dreadful Coronavirus, certain other legal issues have also attracted public attention. One such issue if regarding the judgment passed in Gulza Kumari v. State of Punjab which has managed to grab headlines. This case is regarding a couple in live-in relationship demanding protection. The controversy arose when the Punjab and Haryana High Court denied protection to this couple on moral grounds.

S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010) was a case which provided a legal recognition to live-in relationship. While mandating providing of maintenance to a live-in partner, the Apex Court held that live-in relationship gets covered under the purview of Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. After such a judgment, live-in relationships were considered to be acceptable in Indian society irrespective of its morality. Subsequent to this, there were various other cases where live-in relationships were given a legal recognition by saying that the choice to marry or not is within one’s right to life.

In the present case, the petitioner requested for protection as they had a fear of honour killing. Considering the fact that live-in relationships in India hold a legal identity, it is pertinent that persons in such a relationship deserve equal treatment as other citizens of the country. However, the society is not yet prepared to identify or accept such relationships because of moral reasons. In this situation, it is obvious that people having insecurities regarding their safety will require the State to protect them. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected this plea simply on moral grounds.

If we look back at the year 2018, we will come across the case of Shakti Vahini v. Union of India where the Supreme Court passed a judgment against Honour Killings. Here, the Apex Court gave primary importance to the choice of an individual and stated the it is the State’s responsibility to protect one’ dignity and choice is an essential part of one’s dignity. If we place this judgement in the present situation, then it is necessary for the Punjab and Haryana High Court to have held a view in consonance with the precedent set by the Apex Court and not merely on moral grounds. Such a judgment stands contrary to the judgments passed by the Supreme Court and acts as a threat for people exercising their right to choose. It is extremely necessary for the judiciary to act independent of the social evils so as to act as a check on the society as a guardian of the law.