Gurugram: Two adult women living together in what they describe as a live-in relationship have had to knock on the doors of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to get the police to protect them.
The Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Patiala, had received a representation from the two women on 14 May, seeking protection from their own family members, who were apparently opposed to their relationship.
For eight days, nothing happened. The SSP, according to the petition filed by them before the high court, did not act, and the two women moved the high court.
Hearing the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, Justice H.S. Grewal did not go into the merits of the relationship itself. That was not the question before him. The question was simpler and, in a sense, more troubling: Why had the police not acted on a representation that had been sitting on the SSP’s table for over a week?
On 22 May, the court directed the Patiala SSP to look into the representation, examine the threat perception, and take necessary steps to ensure that the women’s life and liberty are not jeopardised at the hands of private respondents.
Justice Grewal also invoked the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgement in Devu G Nair vs State of Kerala and others, which had laid down specific guidelines for courts dealing with habeas corpus petitions or police protection pleas by same-sex couples and members of the LGBTQ+ community.
“The court must acknowledge that some intimate partners may face social stigma and a neutral stand of the land would be detrimental to the fundamental freedoms of the appellant,” the Supreme Court had ruled in the matter. “Therefore, a court while dealing with a petition for police protection by intimate partners on the grounds that they are same sex, transgender, inter-faith or inter-caste couple must grant an ad-interim measure, such as immediately granting police protection to the petitioners, before establishing the threshold requirement of being at grave risk of violence and abuse.”
Justice Grewal made it explicitly clear that he was not commenting upon the status of the live-in relationship of the petitioners. Whether such a relationship between two women is valid, what its legal standing might be, what rights flow from it—none of that was adjudicated. The petition was disposed of, not decided on merits, with a simple and narrow direction: look into the representation, assess the threat, and protect the lives.
The order also carried a rider that is standard in such matters—but worth noting—that the direction will have no effect on any civil or criminal action that may be initiated in the matter in accordance with law.
(Edited by Nardeep Singh Dahiya)
Also Read: HC scraps Haryana assistant professor recruitments. What it found wrong with HPSC selection process