Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State authorities to grant protection against threats to their life and limb at the hands of the father of one of the woman, the Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Banerjee, J., affirmed the petitioners’ right to live with dignity and liberty and directed the State machinery to ensure their protection against any threats or coercion. The Court observed that,
“The petitioners are grown up consenting individual who are adults and are open to make their own choices out of their respective free will, be it that of choosing their respective life partners.”
Brief Facts
In the present case, the two petitioners, who were grown up consenting adults, had solemnised their marriage on 18 March 2026 according to Hindu Vedic rites and customs. The grievance of the petitioners was directed primarily against the woman’s father who was allegedly constantly intimidating them, and threatening them with grave physical harm, thereby interfering with their fundamental right to life and personal liberty. Due to these threats the petitioners were residing outside Delhi out of fear but intended to reside at the address of Petitioner 2.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that the petitioners were “grown up consenting individuals” who were “open to make their own choices out of their respective free will”, including the choice of a life partner. Once such a decision is taken and the “cerebral vow of marriage” is undertaken, they are entitled to live with liberty and dignity, as guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. It further clarified that this protection extends not only against society at large but also against parents, relatives, and friends, if necessary.
The Court relied on Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368 and Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475, to affirm an adult individual’s right to marry a person of their choice.
The Court allowed the petition and granted protection to the petitioners with permission to contact the Head/Beat Constable, or the SHO of Police Station Sangam Vihar, Delhi, whenever required for assistance. It directed the SHO and Beat Constable concerned to take “all possible steps” to provide adequate assistance and protection and act in accordance with law whenever the need arises. Further, if the petitioners shift residence to another jurisdiction, they must inform the SHO concerned within three days and the new SHO should similarly ensure protection.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of in the above terms.
[Kirti v. State (NCT of Delhi), W.P.(CRL) 1203/2026, CRL.M.A. 11493/2026-Exp, decided on 15-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Rahul Sharma & Ms. Shailja, Advs., Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC, Counsel for the Respondent/State
SI Rahul Rathi PS Sangam Vihar
Buy Constitution of India HERE
