Rasid and another v. State of Haryana and others, 2026

The petitioners, a man and a woman, approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Both petitioners were adults.

The petitioners claimed that they were in a live-in relationship with each other.

Their respective families were allegedly opposed to their relationship.

The petitioners claimed that they were facing threats because of the relationship.

They stated that they were unable to return to their respective homes because of the alleged apprehension of danger.

The petitioners had submitted a representation to the concerned authorities on 13 August 2026 seeking protection of their life and liberty.

According to the State's submissions, petitioner No. 1 was already married to respondent No. 13.

Petitioner No. 1 had two children from that marriage.

Petitioner No. 2 was already married to respondent No. 4.

Petitioner No. 2 had six children from that marriage.

Thus, the relationship between the petitioners had potential implications for the families of both petitioners and, collectively, the interests of eight children.

The petitioners nevertheless claimed that, being adults, they were entitled to protection of their life and personal liberty.

Counsel for the petitioners argued that their relationship was opposed by their families and that they were living under a constant apprehension of threat.

The State informed the Court that, pursuant to the representation submitted by the petitioners, statements of respondent No. 4 and certain co-villagers, including respondents Nos. 9 to 12, had been recorded.

According to the State, the inquiry did not disclose any threat perception requiring protection.

The High Court examined the petition, the representation submitted by the petitioners and the material placed before it.

The Court found that the petitioners had not placed sufficient material demonstrating a specific and credible threat to their life or liberty.

The Court also considered the position of the respective spouses and children of the petitioners.

During the proceedings, the Court observed that it would otherwise have considered directing the deposit of a sum in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) in the names of each of the eight children.

However, the Court did not issue such a direction in view of the request made by counsel for the petitioners.

The Court ultimately dismissed the petition.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners.

The Court acknowledged that every citizen is entitled to the protection of life and personal liberty.

The Court also recognised that the State has a duty to protect the life and liberty of its citizens.

However, the Court held that a petition seeking protection must be supported by a specific and credible apprehension of danger.

The Court found that the petitioners had failed to establish such a specific threat.

The Court noted that the allegations contained in the petition and the representation were essentially vague and general.

The State had conducted an inquiry after receiving the petitioners' representation.

Statements of relevant persons, including petitioner No. 2's husband and certain co-villagers, had been recorded.

According to the State's inquiry, no threat perception was found.

The High Court found no material sufficient to contradict that position.

The Court took note of the fact that both petitioners were already married to other persons.

The Court also noted that petitioner No. 1 had two children and petitioner No. 2 had six children from their respective marriages.

The Court held that the claimed liberty of the petitioners had to be considered alongside the interests of the respective spouses and children.

The Court criticised the use of the protection jurisdiction where the material did not demonstrate a genuine threat.

The Court observed that the petition appeared to seek to use the legal process to legitimise or shield the relationship in circumstances where the petitioners had failed to establish an actual threat.

The Court further observed that the right to life and liberty cannot be invoked as a means of undermining the rule of law.

The Court stated that granting the requested protection in the circumstances could have wider consequences for the petitioners' immediate families.

The Court observed that such protection could potentially disrupt the existing family structure and social relationships.

The Court considered the possibility of safeguarding the interests of the eight children through financial deposits but ultimately did not issue such a direction following the request made on behalf of the petitioners.

The Court nevertheless clarified that the State remains under a continuing duty to protect the life and liberty of its citizens generally.

Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed the petition.

The central question was whether the petitioners had established the factual foundation necessary for seeking police protection under Article 21.

The Court did not dispute the general proposition that adults are entitled to life and personal liberty.

However, the Court distinguished between a general constitutional right and the circumstances necessary to obtain a specific protective order from the High Court.

According to the Court, a protection petition requires more than a general assertion that the petitioners fear their families.

There must be a cogent and specific threat capable of demonstrating an actual apprehension to life or liberty.

The State had already conducted an inquiry pursuant to the petitioners' representation.

The inquiry did not reveal a specific threat perception.

The Court therefore found insufficient factual basis for directing the police to provide the requested protection.

The Court also took into account the existing family circumstances.

Both petitioners were already married, and their respective marriages involved children.

The Court therefore considered that the claimed interests of the petitioners could not be viewed entirely in isolation from the interests of their spouses and children.

The Court's reasoning thus involved a distinction between personal liberty as a constitutional right and the use of constitutional remedies to obtain protection in circumstances where the alleged threat had not been established.