The Punjab And High Court in the case XXX and another vs. State of UT Chandigarh & others observed while stressing that State Government cannot shirk its duty to ensure the safety of its citizens and has directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, UT Chandigarh for examining the perception of alleged threat of a same-sex couple and also to provide them security if it is needed.
The bench headed by Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill in the case observed and has passed the said order on the petition of two women aged 21 years and 24 years, who moved the court wherein seeking protection against the private respondents, thus, who opposed the live-in relationship of the petitioners and did not approve their intention for solemnizing ‘same sex marriage’
The counsel appearing submitted before the court that both the petitioners are well educated and are pursuing private jobs and they both know each other for the last about 3 years, who have been working at a common workplace.
Further, it has been stated by the court that on account of their fondness for each other, the petitioner are together residing in a live-in relationship, but the marriage have not been solemnized as same sex marriage is not being legalized in India so far.
It has also been noted by the bench that it is specifically provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India that there shall be no person who shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according the procedures which are being established by law and the State is duty-bound for ensuring the safety of its citizens.
Further, the said court also refrained from commenting upon the validity of the reasons, which furnish apprehension to the petitioners with regards to their security or with regards to their relationship.
However, the court without commenting as regards the nature or propriety or legality of the relationship amongst the petitioners disposed of the petition with a direction to respondent No.2 i.e., Senior Superintendent of Police, UT Chandigarh in order to get the representation of the petitioners who are examined with regards to the alleged threat perception of the petitioners.
Further, it has also been directed by the court that there being a genuine threat to the lives and liberty of the petitioners, thus, necessary steps are need to be taken thereupon at the earliest so as to ensure that no harm is being caused to the petitioners.
