Context:
Recently, a judgment by the Allahabad High Court in Kiran Rawat vs State of UP implied that the live-in relationship is a social problem.
- It undermines the principles of constitutional morality in personal relationships, which is repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court of India.
Constitutional Morality:
- Guiding Principle: It refers to the Constitutional principles and values that guide the interpretation and application of its provisions.
- Includes: It includes the spirit and objectives of the constitution, promoting justice, equality, freedom and the protection of the fundamental rights.
Personal Liberty:
- Definition: Personal liberty is the individual’s freedom to make choices, decisions, and actions without undue interference or pressure from external forces, including the state or other individuals.
- Dealing Aspects: It deals with the various aspects of an individual’s life i.e., physical, mental, and emotional well-being, as well as their autonomy and privacy.
- Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: It deals with the Protection of Life and Personal Liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of his/her life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Concerns with the Judgment:
- Undermined Constitutional Morality: The High Court’s decision undermines the individual’s autonomy and personal liberty, which are essential components of constitutional morality.
- Rejected Precedential Value of The Supreme Court: This decision undermines the binding nature of Supreme Court judgments and rejects the precedential value of the top court verdicts.
- It rejects the precedential value of Supreme Court verdicts on live-in relationships, such as D. Velusamy (2010), Indra Sarma (2013), and Dhanu Lal (2015), which has recognized and protected the rights of individuals in live-in relationships.
- Unconstitutional Judgment: The High Court preferred the personal laws on marriage to the fundamental rights of individuals, which is unconstitutional.
- Tilting towards Conventional Beliefs: The verdict shows a clear inclination towards social orthodoxy and religious revivalism.
- In the guise of constitutional adjudication, the court only tried to reiterate the traditional beliefs on marriage and morals.
- The judgment has been criticized for its departure from constitutional principles, disregard for precedent, and reliance on irrelevant personal laws.
Earlier Related Judgements by the Supreme Court:
- Lata Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2006): The Supreme Court directed police authorities throughout the country to see to it that any adult undergoing inter-caste or inter-religious marriage is not harassed by anyone.
- S. Khushboo vs Kanniammal & Anr. (2010): The Supreme Court held that there is no statutory offence that takes place when adults willingly engage in sexual relations outside the marital setting.
- Joseph Shine vs Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court decriminalized adultery as defined under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
- This was done since the state’s police power cannot be used for punishing individual moral aberrations.
- Navtej Singh Johar vs Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court substantially struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Court dealing with same sex relations and made a constitutional adjudication rather than mere moral judgment.
Way Forward
- Clear Guidelines: The Supreme Court should provide clear guidelines and legislation should provide legal recognition for live-in relationships.
- Strengthening Precedent: Article 141 of the Indian Constitution laid down that the Supreme Court’s decisions are binding on all the courts in the country.
- These records are admitted to be of evidentiary value and cannot be questioned when produced before any court. These records recognised as legal precedents and legal references.
- In the process of constitutional adjudication, the top court is not ‘encouraging’ or discouraging any social practice or human conduct.
- Judicial Training and Updation: There is a need to conduct training programs for the judiciary to become more dedicated towards fundamental values rather than social beliefs.
- Public Awareness: There is an utmost need to educate the public about legal guidelines to become aware about their rights and judicial decisions.
News Source: The Hindu
To get PDF version, Please click on "Print PDF" button.