Uma Bharti & Anr. v. The Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2026

The petitioners were adults who had been in a live-in relationship.

They stated that they had known each other since 2014 and had been residing together.

The couple intended to marry but alleged that the woman's father and brother were opposed to their relationship.

According to the petitioners, the woman's family members had allegedly threatened them with violence.

The petitioners approached the concerned police authorities seeking protection.

They alleged that despite making a complaint to the concerned police station, no effective action was taken.

The petitioners therefore approached the Delhi High Court seeking judicial protection of their life and liberty.

The Court noted that the petitioners, born in 1993 and 1990, were consenting adults.

The central issue before the Court concerned the extent to which consenting adults in a live-in relationship are entitled to constitutional protection against interference by family members or other persons.

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and directed police authorities to provide necessary protection to the couple.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that consenting adults have the unfettered right to choose their partners and reside with them according to their individual choice.

The Court held that a live-in relationship attracts the protection of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Court observed that although a live-in relationship is not legally the same as a solemnised marriage, it is akin to marriage in the context of the rights of consenting adults to choose their relationship and residence.

The Court relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Nandakumar & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors., which recognised the right of major individuals to reside together according to their choice irrespective of whether they are married.

The Court also noted that live-in relationships have received statutory recognition in certain contexts, including under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The Court relied upon Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. to emphasise the importance of individual autonomy and the right to make personal choices without interference based on societal morality or prejudice.

The Court observed that restricting an individual's personal choice on the basis of societal morals and prejudices can amount to a deprivation of individual identity and autonomy.

The Court held that once two adults have voluntarily chosen to enter into a live-in relationship, their parents, relatives or friends have no authority to interfere with that choice, particularly by threatening their life or liberty.

The petitioners were permitted to approach the SHO of Police Station Vijay Vihar or the concerned beat constable whenever necessary.

The concerned police authorities were directed to provide them necessary assistance and protection in accordance with law.

If the petitioners shifted to another police station's jurisdiction, they were directed to inform the concerned SHO of their new address within three days.

The Court directed that the concerned police authorities would thereafter extend similar protection to them.

Individual autonomy: The principal significance of the judgment lies in its strong affirmation of individual autonomy. The Court recognised that choosing one's partner and deciding with whom to reside are matters falling within an individual's personal liberty.

Article 21 protection: Article 21 is not limited to physical existence. It protects dignity, autonomy and the ability of individuals to make fundamental personal choices concerning their lives.

Article 19 and freedom of choice: The Court connected the freedom to choose one's relationship and manner of living with the constitutional protection of freedom under Article 19.

Live-in relationships: The judgment recognises that although a live-in relationship does not automatically create the same legal status as a formally solemnised marriage, consenting adults in such a relationship are nevertheless entitled to constitutional protection.

No family veto: The judgment makes it clear that parents or relatives do not possess a legal veto over the relationship choices of adult individuals. Family disagreement cannot by itself justify threats, coercion or interference.

Protection against violence: The Court's direction for police protection demonstrates that constitutional rights must have an effective remedy. Recognition of the right to choose a partner would be meaningless if the State failed to protect individuals facing threats because of that choice.

Societal morality versus constitutional morality: A significant aspect of the judgment is the distinction between social disapproval and constitutional rights. Personal or societal notions of morality cannot ordinarily override the autonomy of consenting adults.

Reliance on Supreme Court precedent: The Court's reliance on Nandakumar reinforces the established principle that two adults have the right to reside together even in circumstances where they have not entered into marriage.

Shafin Jahan principle: The judgment also reflects the principle that an individual's choice of partner forms an important component of personal autonomy and identity. State or social interference merely because others disapprove of the choice is constitutionally problematic.

Recognition under domestic-violence law: The Court's reference to the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act demonstrates that Indian law has recognised relationships in the nature of marriage for specific protective purposes, even though such relationships do not automatically acquire every legal consequence of marriage.

Scope of the judgment: The decision does not declare that every live-in relationship is legally identical to marriage for all purposes. Rather, it establishes that consenting adults in such a relationship cannot be denied constitutional protection merely because they have chosen not to marry.