Allahabad High Court Orders Police Protection For Man In Live-In Relationship With A Trans Woman

In its order, a bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh asserted that living with a person of one's choice is one sphere of life where Constitutional Courts “positively enforce the Constitutional law dictate, to negate and contain any societal prejudices” that may otherwise violate a citizen's fundamental rights.

“The diversity of perception and personality that perhaps springs from the basic makeup of human beings leads different human beings to make different choices, arguably though placed in similar circumstances. Therefore, the right of free choice is the soul of liberty and the most cherished and dominant characteristic of any free society,” the division bench observed while disposing of a protection plea moved by the petitioners ['J' (Transwoman) and 'M' (Man)] presently living in a live-in relationship.

Essentially, the petitioners had moved the Court stating that owing to the gender identity of 'J', their life, liberty, dignity, and safety are at risk at the instance of persons closely related to the petitioners and others.

In their petition, the petitioners specifically accused 'R', the father of 'M', of verbal and physical assault against 'J', as well as the humiliation endured by the petitioners as a result.

In view of this, the petitioners sought police protection from the Court.

At the outset, the Court noted that our Constitution seeks to preserve that freedom—to live freely, including with a person of one's choice—and that this fundamental right “may never be negotiated” by society on the strength of its existing prejudices.

Further, the Court also opined that being human inherently involves and promotes individuality—whether physical, psychological, emotional, or otherwise—and that a Constitutional democracy promises to preserve and actively promote the diverse individuality that arises in any human society.

The Court also emphasised that when a society restricts its members from asserting their individuality within the boundaries of existing laws, it impedes its own process of evolution.

Against this backdrop, taking note of the facts of the case and the grievances of the petitioners, the Court said in the instant case, the fundamental right of the petitioners to their life and liberty that inheres in it - free choice and preservation of their dignity, was in “urgent need of a reassuring protective embrace” of the Constitutional court.

Accordingly, the Court issued a protective Mandamus, in rem, to declare that no one may harm the petitioners or their properties, either physically or otherwise, because the petitioners decided to live together. The Court added that this “protective line” drawn by the Court would be enforced by the State respondents.

“If any person, body, or entity may violate that line of protection, they may be confronted with this order. Any continued infringement by such person, body or entity, thereafter, may stand exposed to an appropriate measure/proceeding, including as to contempt, in accordance with the established law,” the Court further ordered.

In view of the above, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to respondent No. 2 to ensure the due implementation of the Court's order by making adequate arrangements to preserve the petitioners' life, liberty, and property with dignity.

Advocates Mohd. Umar Iqbal Khan, Irshad Saleem and Quazi Mohammad Akaram appeared for the petitioners.