CURRENT AFFAIRS | MARCH 28, 2026
CLAT GK + CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS & PERSONAL LIBERTY)
The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling on March 27, 2026, held that a married man living in a consensual live-in relationship with another adult is not a criminal offence. The Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena emphatically stated: “Morality and law have to be kept apart. If there is no offence under the law made out, social opinions and morality will not guide the action of the Court for protecting the rights of citizens.”
The ruling came in Anamika and Another v State of UP, a protection plea filed by a couple from Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh, who faced death threats and the risk of honour killing from the woman’s family. The woman’s mother had lodged an FIR under Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), alleging her 18-year-old daughter was “lured away.” The Court granted interim protection, restrained the family from contacting the couple, and directed the SP of Shahjahanpur to be personally responsible for their safety.
Why This Matters for CLAT
Constitutional & Legal Framework
- Article 21 (Right to Life & Personal Liberty): The expansive interpretation includes right to dignity, privacy, and the freedom to choose one’s partner — the bedrock of this ruling.
- K.S. Puttaswamy v UOI (2017): Right to privacy is a fundamental right under Art 21. Personal choices about intimate relationships fall within the zone of privacy.
- S. Khushboo v Kanniammal (2010): SC held that living together without marriage is not an offence. A man and woman cohabiting cannot be prosecuted.
- D. Velusamy v D. Patchaiammal (2010): SC laid down conditions for live-in relationships: legal age, voluntary cohabitation, holding out as spouses, reasonable duration.
- Indra Sarma v VKV Sarma (2013): SC identified five categories of live-in relationships and held not all qualify as “relationship in the nature of marriage.”
- Joseph Shine v UOI (2018): SC struck down Section 497 IPC (adultery) as unconstitutional, holding it violated Articles 14, 15, and 21.
- Shakti Vahini v UOI (2018): SC held honour killings violate fundamental rights and directed preventive measures.
CLAT Exam Angle
This is a classic CLAT legal reasoning topic testing the tension between law and morality:
- Law vs. Morality debate: Can courts use social morality to restrict fundamental rights? The HC says no.
- Article 21 expansion: From mere right to life to encompassing dignity, privacy, personal autonomy, and choice of partner
- Precedent chain: Khushboo → Velusamy → Indra Sarma → Puttaswamy → Joseph Shine — evolution of personal liberty jurisprudence
- BNS provisions: Section 87 BNS (kidnapping) and when it does NOT apply to consenting adults
- Honour killings: Constitutional protection vs. extra-judicial community actions
Key Facts at a Glance
| Parameter | Details |
|---|---|
| Court | Allahabad High Court (Division Bench) |
| Judges | Justice J.J. Munir & Justice Tarun Saxena |
| Case Name | Anamika and Another v State of UP |
| Date | March 27, 2026 |
| Key Holding | Married man in live-in relationship is not criminal offence |
| Core Principle | “Morality and law have to be kept apart” |
| FIR Section | Section 87 BNS (kidnapping) |
| Relief Granted | Interim protection, family restrained, SP made responsible |
CLAT Mnemonic: LIVEIN
L – Law and morality must be kept apart (Allahabad HC 2026)
I – Indra Sarma: 5 categories of live-in relationships
V – Velusamy conditions: legal age, voluntary, held out as spouses
E – Eighteen+ consenting adults cannot be prosecuted for cohabiting
I – Intimate choices protected under Art 21 privacy (Puttaswamy)
N – No offence: Khushboo v Kanniammal (2010) SC ruling
Test Your Understanding
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
