Introduction
Live-in
relationships, once taboo in many traditional societies, are gradually gaining
constitutional and legal recognition. At the heart of this transformation lies
the recognition of individual autonomy and dignity, enshrined in the right
to privacy. As the Indian Supreme Court stated in K.S. Puttaswamy v.
Union of India (2017), “The autonomy of the individual is the ability to
make decisions on vital matters of concern to life.” This includes
decisions about intimate relationships and the choice to cohabit without
marriage.
Right to Privacy and Article 21
Article
21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty,
which has been expansively interpreted to include the right to privacy. The Puttaswamy
judgment reaffirmed privacy as “an intrinsic part of the right to life and
personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guaranteed by
Part III of the Constitution.”
Privacy
protects the right of consenting adults to choose their partners and living
arrangements. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud in Puttaswamy emphasized, “Privacy
is the constitutional core of human dignity.” This interpretation makes it
clear that live-in relationships fall within the ambit of constitutionally
protected choices.
Judicial Recognition of Live-in Relationships
The
Indian judiciary has acknowledged live-in relationships as valid under certain
legal frameworks. In S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal (2010), the Supreme Court
observed:
“A
man and a woman living together without marriage cannot be construed as an
offence.”
In
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the Court laid down five criteria to
determine whether a live-in relationship could be considered “in the nature of
marriage,” including long-term cohabitation and social acceptance. The Court
noted:
“Not
all live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of
marriage to get the benefit of the Domestic Violence Act.”
These
rulings protect individuals from harassment and social ostracism, reinforcing
the idea that the law must evolve with changing societal norms.
Challenges in Enforcement
Despite
judicial recognition, social stigma and inconsistent law enforcement continue
to undermine the rights of individuals in live-in relationships. Law
enforcement agencies sometimes refuse protection or even penalize such couples,
especially in cases involving caste or religion.
As
Justice Chandrachud noted in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
(2018), “The Constitution is a living document. It has to evolve with the
needs of a progressive society.” However, cultural resistance often stalls
this evolution at the grassroots level.
Comparative Perspective
In
jurisdictions like the United States and the UK, live-in partners often enter
into cohabitation agreements that define property and custodial rights.
These legal instruments provide certainty and prevent exploitation. In
contrast, India’s lack of codified law forces courts to interpret the
Constitution and existing statutes case by case, leading to inconsistent
outcomes.
As
legal scholar Roscoe Pound famously said:
“Law
must be stable and yet it cannot stand still.”
This
highlights the need for legislative clarity on live-in relationships in India.
Conclusion
The
integration of live-in relationships into the constitutional framework through
the right to privacy represents a crucial step toward greater personal freedom.
However, there remains a pressing need for legislative reform to ensure
uniform protection and legal clarity. The state must not only protect
individual choices but also proactively ensure safety, dignity, and equality
for those living outside traditional marital frameworks. As Justice A.P. Shah
once remarked:
“The
essence of liberty lies in the freedom of individuals to choose their path;
however unconventional it may be.”
