Ujjawal v. State of Haryana

Last updated
Ujjawal v. State of Haryana
Emblem of India.svg
Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
Full case nameUjjawal &Anr. versus State of Haryana &Ors.
Decided12 May 2021
Citation(s) CRWP. No. 4268 of 2021
Court membership
Judge sittingAnil Kshetarpal J.
Case opinions
Refused to provide police protection to a couple facing threat to their lives and personal liberty, citing potential disruption to "social fabric of the society."
Decision byAnil Kshetarpal J.
Keywords
Cohabitation Rights, Same-sex Relationship

Ujjawal &Anr. versus State of Haryana&Ors.(2021), a case where Punjab and Haryana High Court, refused to provide police protection to a couple facing threat to their lives and personal liberty, citing potential disruption to "social fabric of the society." [1] [2] [3]

Contents

Background

Ujjawal, 18 years old, and his 21-year-old partner have stated that they are engaged in a mutually consensual relationship and are currently residing together. Due to concerns over potential harm to their lives and personal liberty from Ujjawal's family members, the couple approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court to request protective measures. [3]

Opinion of the Court

The Bench observed that Ujjawal is "barely" 18 years old. The Bench opined that if the couple's plea for safeguarding their life and personal liberty from Ujjawal's family is approved, the entire social fabric of the society would be disturbed. As a result, the Bench found no valid grounds to approve the requested protection. [2] [3]

The verdict of the Bench noticeably lacks legal precedents, thorough analysis, and comprehensive reasoning to substantiate its conclusions. [1] [2] [3]

The judgement contradicts the precedents set by the apex court, Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the right to choose a partner is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and the constitutional rights cannot be denied on the social moral grounds. [4] [5]

Right to choose a partner

The judgement contradicts the past judgements of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has affirmed the right to choose a partner is part of the personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. [4] [5]

In Shafin Jahan versus Asokan K.M. (2018), a two-judge of the Supreme Court, consisting of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, established that the right to choose one's spouse is inherent to Article 21 of the Constitution. While recognizing the significance of social values and morals, the court emphasized that these must not take precedence over constitutionally protected freedoms, which constitute both a fundamental human right and a constitutional right. [4] [5] [6]

The right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees the right to life. This right cannot be taken away except through a law which is substantively and procedurally fair, just and reasonable. Intrinsic to the liberty which the Constitution guarantees as a fundamental right is the ability of each individual to take decisions on matters central to the pursuit of happiness.

— CJI Dipak Misra, Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., para 21, pp 57

In Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud extended legal protection not only to married couples but also to unmarried couples, safeguarding them from potential threats of violence. The bench concluded that ensuring the safety of couples facing such threats is of paramount importance. [5] [7]

Constitutional morality

In the case of S.Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, consisting of Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice Deepak Verma and Justice B.S. Chauhan, ruled against excessive interference in personal autonomy and freedom of expression, cautioning against using the pretext of upholding social morality, given the subjective nature of these moral concepts. [4] [8]

Notions of social morality are inherently subjective and the criminal law cannot be used as a means to unduly interfere with the domain of personal autonomy

— J B.S. Chauhan, S.Khushboo v. Kanniammal, para 29, pp 32

In the case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) , which led to the decriminalization of homosexuality, a five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court, emphasized the supremacy of 'constitutional morality' over 'social morality'. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, in his concurring opinion, delved into Constitutional morality and the role of Constitutional Courts in safeguarding it. Constitutional morality dictates that citizens should be well-versed in and supportive of the core values of the Constitution, such as liberty, equality, and fraternity, as these foundational principles underlie the overarching objectives of the Constitution. It's crucial to recognize that the integration of constitutional morality is an ongoing process within society, and to facilitate this progression, constitutional courts are entrusted with the task of acting as external enablers. The duty of these courts encompasses overseeing the preservation of constitutional morality, a pivotal role in creating an environment conducive to the advancement of human dignity and liberty. [5] [9]

In a constitutional democracy like ours where the rule of law prevails, [rule of law] must not be allowed to be trampled by obscure notions of social morality which have no legal tenability.

— CJI Dipak Misra, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, para 120, pp 79

However, the current case contradicted this established legal precedent, as Justice Anil Kshetarpal emphasized the significance of 'social morality' in his verdict. [4] [5]

High Court Cases

This section delves into relevant cases from the High Courts of India. It's important to note that judgments rendered by one High Court do not hold mandatory authority over another, but they can still be regarded as influential precedents.

Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh

In the related case of Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) , a same-sex couple residing together, approached the Allahabad High Court seeking protection against threat to their life and liberty by family members and the immediate society. In contrast to the Ujjawal v. State of Haryana, the verdict in Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh highlighted the precedence of 'constitutional morality', and upheld Constitutional rights. [3] [10] [11]

A two-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court invoked the Supreme Court precedent set by Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) , establishing that sexual orientation imposes both negative and positive obligations on the state, requiring not only non-discrimination but also the acknowledgment of rights that lead to genuine fulfillment in same-sex relationships. The Bench emphasized that as a constitutional court, it is obligated to uphold Constitutional morality and protect the rights of citizens, which are jeopardized solely due to their sexual orientation, and the Bench instructed the relevant law enforcement personnel to offer essential protection and prevent any form of harassment. [12] [11]

This Court being a constitutional Court is duty-bound to monitor and observe the Constitutional morality as well as the rights of the citizens which are under threat only on account of the sexual orientation.

— Shashi Kant Gupta J. and Pankaj Bhatia J., Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh, pp. 4

The Supreme Court of India recognized Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) as a significant ruling by a High Court in its "Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on LGBTIQA+ Community," which addresses the challenges that marginalized queer individuals face within the justice system due to systemic marginalization. [13]

Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police

In the related case of Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police (2018) , Sreeja submitted a petition to the Kerala High Court seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus to compel the presentation of her same-sex romantic partner, Aruna, and ensure Aruna's liberty. In contrast to the Ujjawal v. State of Haryana, the verdict in Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police refrained from assessing the suitability of the partner and instead upheld Constitutional rights. [3] [4] [14] [15]

A two-judge bench of the Kerala High Court observed that the court should abstain from evaluating the suitability of the partner, asserting that not taking action could potentially jeopardize Constitutional rights; consequently, the court issued a writ of Habeas Corpus, granting Aruna the freedom to be with Sreeja. The Bench referenced Supreme Court precedents such as Soni Gerry v. Gerry Douglas (2018), which established that the court cannot curtail the personal freedom of an adult under the doctrine of parens patriae; Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2018), which ruled that adults lacking legal capacity for marriage can cohabit without formal wedlock; and Shafin Jahan V. Asokan (2018), which underscored the court's role in habeas corpus petitions as ensuring the detainee's independent choice while refraining from assessing partner suitability. Additionally, the Bench relied on Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) , which established that the Discrimination based on sexual orientation infringes on fundamental rights and asserted that constitutional morality should not be compromised for social morality. Furthermore, the Bench highlighted that the Indian Parliament recognizes 'live-in relationships' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005. [14] [15]

The Supreme Court of India recognized Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police (2018) as a significant ruling by a High Court in its "Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on LGBTIQA+ Community," which addresses the challenges that marginalized queer individuals face within the justice system due to systemic marginalization. The publication highlighted the observations of the High Court on aspects such as women's consent and adulthood, alongside the acknowledgment of 'live-in relationships' among same-sex couples, signifies progress in the acknowledgment of the rights of marginalized queer individuals. [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of India</span> Highest judicial body in India

The Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial authority and the highest court of the Republic of India. It is the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India. It also has the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court, which consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of fellow 33 judges, has extensive powers in the form of original, appellate and advisory jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Y. V. Chandrachud</span> 16th Chief Justice Of India

Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud was an Indian jurist who served as the 16th Chief Justice of India, serving from 22 February 1978 to the day he retired on 11 July 1985. Born in Pune in the Bombay Presidency, he was first appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court of India on 28 August 1972 and is the longest-serving Chief Justice in India's history at 7 years and 4 months. His nickname was Iron Hands after his well-regarded unwillingness to let anything slip past him.

G.S. Singhvi is a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India. He retired on 11 December 2013.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dipak Misra</span> 45th Chief Justice of India

Dipak Misra is an Indian jurist who served as the 45th Chief Justice of India from 28 August 2017 till 2 October 2018. He is also former Chief Justice of the Patna High Court and Delhi High Court. He is the nephew of Justice Ranganath Misra, who was the 21st Chief Justice from 1990 to 1991.

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya is a former justice of the Supreme Court of India. He was also chair of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal from 1 June 2016 to 14 March 2020. He previously served as Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court and also served as acting Chief Justice at the Jharkhand High Court and the Madras High Court.

<i>Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case

Suresh Kumar Koushal &Anr. v. NAZ Foundation &Ors.(2013) is a case in which a 2 judge Supreme Court bench consisting of G. S. Singhvi and S. J. Mukhopadhaya overturned the Delhi High Court case Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court of India decided to revisit this judgement after several curative petitions were filed against it, in 2017. Thereby in 2018, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, a 5 judge bench of the Supreme Court overturned this judgement, decriminalizing homosexuality. Portions of Section 377 relating to sex with minors, non-consensual sexual acts such as rape, and bestiality remain in force.

<i>Right to Privacy verdict</i> Indian Fundamental Rights Case Law

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors. (2017), also known as the Right to Privacy verdict, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India, which holds that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

<i>Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Navtej Singh Johar &Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice (2018) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that decriminalised all consensual sex among adults, including homosexual sex.

Arundhati Katju is a lawyer qualified to practice in India and New York. She has litigated many notable cases at the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court, including the Section 377 case, the case of a trans man being illegally confined by his parents, the Augusta Westland bribery case, the 2G spectrum corruption case and the Jessica Lal murder case. Her law practice encompasses white-collar defence, general civil litigation, and public interest cases.

S. Muralidhar is an Indian Judge. He is former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court and Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and Delhi High Court.

<i>Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Sultana Mirza &Anr. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh &Ors. (2020), a decision of the Allahabad High Court, established that the Constitutional Court bears the responsibility of overseeing and upholding both constitutional morality and the rights of citizens, particularly when these rights are endangered solely due to their sexual orientation.

<i>Poonam Rani v. State of Uttar Pradesh</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Poonam Rani &Anr.v. State Of Uttar Pradesh&Ors. (2021) a decision of the Allahabad High Court, reaffirmed that the Constitutional Court bears the responsibility of overseeing and upholding both constitutional morality and the rights of citizens, particularly when these rights are endangered solely due to their sexual orientation.

<i>Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal</i> Indian Case Law

Deepika Singh versus Central Administrative Tribunal &Ors.(2022) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that widens the definition of 'family' under Indian law.

<i>Rohit Sagar v. State of Uttarakhand</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Rohit Sagar &Anr. versus State of Uttarakhand &Ors.(2021), a decision of the Uttarakhand High Court, established the right of legal adults to select their own partners and instructed the police to ensure the couple's safety and safeguard their property.

<i>Chinmayee Jena v. State of Odisha</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Chinmayee Jena versus State of Odisha &Ors.(2020) is case where the Orissa High Court upheld the right of self-determination of gender as an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression. The court recognized the rights of trans persons to cohabit with the partner of their choice, regardless of the “gender” of the partner.

<i>Arun Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Arun Kumar &Anr. versus Inspector General of Registration&Ors. (2019) is a decision of the Madras High Court which recognised trans woman as a "bride" within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and prohibited genital-normalizing surgery for intersex infants and children except on life-threatening situations.

<i>Adhila Nasarin v. State Commissioner of Police</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Adhila Nasarin versus State Commissioner of Police &Ors.(2022) is case where Kerala High Court held that the adults in mutually consenting relationship should be allowed to live their lives according to their informed choice, regardless of gender.

<i>Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Sreeja S versus Commissioner of Police &Ors.(2018) is case where Kerala High Court held that separating the adults in a consensual relationship is a violation of the Constitutional right, regardless of their sexual orientation.

<i>Devu G. Nair v. State of Kerala</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Devu G. Nair versus State Of Kerala &Ors. (2023) is an ongoing Supreme Court case, poised to examine the legality of Conversion Therapy and addressing whether the High Court should have facilitated the alleged detainee's opportunity to provide their statement in person within the secure confines of the High Court building.

<i>Karnataka Sexual Minorities Forum v. State of Karnataka</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case Law

Karnataka Sexual Minorities Forum versus State of Karnataka &Ors. (2017), a case of the Karnataka High Court, which resulted in an amendment of Section 36A of the Karnataka Police Act, which categorized the intersex, non-binary gender and transgender individuals as predisposed to criminal activity.

References

  1. 1 2 Sarkar, Dr Subhradipta. "Judicial fickleness: P&H high court plays snakes and ladders with live-in relationship". The Times of India. ISSN   0971-8257 . Retrieved 2023-08-28.
  2. 1 2 3 Sonia (2021-07-26). "Legal status of Live-in Relationships in India: Mapping Indian Jurisprudence - Academike". www.lawctopus.com. Retrieved 2022-10-08.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ujjawal &Anr. versus State of Haryana &Ors., Criminal Writ Petition Number 4268 of 2021 ( Punjab and Haryana High Court 12 May 2021).
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Can same-sex couple live together under one roof? – The Leaflet". theleaflet.in. 2022-06-16. Retrieved 2023-08-28.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Comparing Judicial precedents on Live-in relationships: Is the social fabric really pervaded?". LawBeat. Retrieved 2022-10-08.
  6. ↑ Shafin Jahan versus Asokan K.M. &Ors.,, Criminal Appeal No 366 of 2018 ( Supreme Court of India 09 April 2018).
  7. ↑ Shakti Vahini v. Union of India &Ors.,, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 231 of 2010 ( Supreme Court of India 27 March 2018).
  8. ↑ S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, Criminal Appeal No. 913 of 2010 ( Supreme Court of India 28 April 2010),archived from the original .
  9. ↑ Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice, Writ Petition (Criminal) Number 76 of 2016 ( Supreme Court of India ).
  10. ↑ "Allahabad HC Asks Shamli SP To Give Protection To a Same-Sex Couple". The Wire. Retrieved 2021-06-09.
  11. 1 2 Sultana Mirza & Anr. v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., WRIT-C. No. 17394 of 2020( Allahabad High Court 2 November 2020), Text .
  12. ↑ "Allahabad HC Asks Shamli SP To Give Protection To a Same-Sex Couple". The Wire. Retrieved 2021-06-09.
  13. 1 2 Supreme Court of India (26 November 2022), Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on LGBTIQA+ Community (PDF), Supreme Court of India, p. 25, archived from the original (PDF) on 2 June 2023
  14. 1 2 Indulia, Bhumika (2018-10-20). "Live-in relationship of a lesbian couple is not violative of any law and is not a crime". SCC Blog. Retrieved 2023-08-16.
  15. 1 2 Sreeja S versus Commissioner of Police &Ors., W. P. (Crl.) No. 372 of 2018 ( Kerala High Court 24 September 2018).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.