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.