Seeking the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, the petitioner urges the Court to demand his partner's presentation and appropriate action from the respondents.

Furthermore, the petitioner's counsel presented the joint affidavit from Sonu Krishna Jena and his partner, attested by the Executive Magistrate of Bhubaneswar on March 16, 2020, confirming their current cohabitation.

[4][6] The Court has instructed the Superintendent of Police of Jajpur to determine the desires of Sonu Krishna Jena's romantic partner, including whether she intends to remain with the petitioner, and to ensure that her marriage is not solemnized against her wishes.

The justices clarified to her that the mere filing of the writ petition alleging illegal restraint did not compel her to join Sonu Krishna Jena if she chose otherwise.

However, the court did not issue an order on that day, deferring it to August 21, 2020, upon the request of the counsel representing the family of Sonu Krishna Jena's romantic partner.

Importantly, the court cited the Yogyakarta Principles from the National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) verdict to affirm the inviolable nature of universal human rights for all individuals.

[3] The Supreme Court of India acknowledged this case in its publication "Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on LGBTIQA+ Community," underscoring it as a significant example of a High Court confronting systemic hurdles encountered by queer individuals within the justice system, with the publication highlighting that the ruling provided due recognition to the self-identified gender identity and pronouns of a transgender man petitioner, consistently referring to him as he/him/his throughout the judgment.