The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ordered the police to provide protection to a man and woman who got married against their families' wishes and feared retaliation. The court emphasized that the right to choose a life partner is a fundamental right of consenting adults, protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It reaffirmed that individuals have the freedom to make personal choices without fear of harm or interference.

The court said that when two adults choose to marry, their decision is the most important, and they don’t need permission from their family. The court said that marriages between two consenting adults should be protected by the Constitution, and neither family approval nor society’s approval is needed once both individuals agree to marry.
Justice Nargal explained that true freedom must be respected and tested according to constitutional values. 

He emphasized that without dignity and the freedom to make choices, a person’s constitutional rights would lose their meaning. He also said that no one should stop a person from making their own choice in marriage, and doing so would violate their constitutional rights.

While hearing a case filed by Anamika Devi and her husband, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal pointed out that both were adults and married off their own choice on March 26, following Hindu customs. The couple asked the court for protection because they were facing threats of violence and harassment from their families due to their marriage, which was between two different families.

The court said that marriages between two consenting adults should be protected by the Constitution, and neither family approval nor society’s approval is needed once both individuals agree to marry. Justice Nargal pointed out that true freedom must be respected and tested according to constitutional values. He said that without dignity and the freedom to make choices, a person’s constitutional rights would lose their meaning. He also said that no one should stop a person from making their own choice in marriage, and doing so would violate their constitutional rights.

While hearing the case, the court referred to important past rulings, like Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, to support its decision. It ordered the authorities to protect the couple, but only after confirming their ages and the legality of their marriage. The court also allowed the police to continue any legal investigation if there was an FIR against either of the petitioners.

However, the court made it clear that this order does not approve the marriage or confirm the petitioners’ ages. These details must still be verified according to the law.

 

You might also be interested in - Does Rahul Gandhi hold ‘dual citizenship’? Court asks for report by May 5