Delhi High Court: In a case wherein petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking issuance of directions to Respondents 1 and 2 to provide protection against life and liberty threats given by Respondents 3 and 4, parents of Petitioner 1, Saurabh Banerjee, J., opined that it is not for the State or the society or even the parents of the parties involved to, in any way, dictate the choice of life partner of a person or curtain and limit such rights of an individual when it involves two consenting adults. The Court allowed the petition and directed that the contact number of the Beat Constable concerned and the SHO concerned shall be provided to the petitioners, and they shall be free to call or get in touch with either of them, as and when the need so arises.
Background
The petitioners being majors, were married under the Special Marriages Act, 1954, against the wishes of their respective families and as the petitioners belonged to different religions, they were receiving threats from Respondents 3 and 4. The petitioners filed the petition to seek police protection against Respondents 3 and 4.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the right to marry is an incident of human liberty and the right to marry a person of one’s choice was not only underscored in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but was also an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution which guaranteed the right to life. The Court relied on Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368, wherein the Supreme Court had highlighted the right of every individual to marry a person of his or her choice. The Court reiterated that the choice to choose a life partner could not in any way be affected by matters of faith and religion, especially when the Constitution guaranteed to each individual the right to freely practice, profess and propagate any religion, and it also guaranteed every individual the autonomy for these aspects in matters of marriage. The Court opined that it was not for the State or the society or even the parents of the parties involved to, in any way, dictate the choice of life partner of a person or curtain and limit such rights of an individual when it involved two consenting adults.
The Court noted that the petitioners were majors and thus opined that they were well within their rights to marry each other unaffected by religion, faith, and beliefs. Further the Court stated that Respondents 3 and 4, even though being parents of Petitioner 1, could not be permitted to threaten the life and liberty of the petitioners, who did not require any social approval for their personal decisions and choices. The Court opined that the petitioners were entitled for protection under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court allowed the petition and directed that the contact number of the Beat Constable concerned and the SHO concerned shall be provided to the petitioners, and they shall be free to call or get in touch with either of them, as and when the need so arises. Further, the SHO concerned, and Beat Constable shall also take all possible steps to provide the adequate assistance and protection, as needed, to the petitioners, in accordance with the law.
[Muskan Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5843, Order dated 12-09-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gurpreet Singh and Mr. Kamal, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
