(2021), a case where Punjab and Haryana High Court, refused to provide police protection to a couple facing threat to their lives and personal liberty, citing potential disruption to "social fabric of the society.

Due to concerns over potential harm to their lives and personal liberty from Ujjawal's family members, the couple approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court to request protective measures.

The Bench opined that if the couple's plea for safeguarding their life and personal liberty from Ujjawal's family is approved, the entire social fabric of the society would be disturbed.

The Supreme Court has affirmed the right to choose a partner is part of the personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The duty of these courts encompasses overseeing the preservation of constitutional morality, a pivotal role in creating an environment conducive to the advancement of human dignity and liberty.

It's important to note that judgments rendered by one High Court do not hold mandatory authority over another, but they can still be regarded as influential precedents.

In the related case of Sultana Mirza v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020), a same-sex couple residing together, approached the Allahabad High Court seeking protection against threat to their life and liberty by family members and the immediate society.

[3][10][11] A two-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court invoked the Supreme Court precedent set by Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), establishing that sexual orientation imposes both negative and positive obligations on the state, requiring not only non-discrimination but also the acknowledgment of rights that lead to genuine fulfillment in same-sex relationships.

In contrast to the Ujjawal v. State of Haryana, the verdict in Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police refrained from assessing the suitability of the partner and instead upheld Constitutional rights.