The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that the consent of family, community or clan is not necessary when two consenting adults decide to marry, emphasising that their choice of life partner is protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Shahzad Azeem made the observations while hearing a petition filed by a couple seeking protection from the Jammu and Kashmir administration, alleging that they feared physical violence and harassment from relatives who opposed their marriage, The Indian express reported.
“When two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is manifestation of their choice that is recognised under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution,” the court observed in its October 23 order.
The court said the right to choose a life partner was constitutionally protected and could not be overridden by notions of family honour or collective thinking.
“Consent of family or community or clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock and their (couple’s) consent has to be piously given primacy,” it said.
The petitioners told the court that they had married of their own free will on March 8, 2024, according to Hindu rituals and traditions, and were living together as husband and wife. They apprehended violence and harassment from their relatives because the marriage had taken place against their wishes.
Emphasising the link between personal choice and dignity, the court said that no one should be permitted to interfere with an individual's right to make personal decisions.
“If the right to express one's own choice is obstructed, it would be extremely difficult to think of dignity in its sanctified completeness,” the court observed.
It further said constitutional courts had an obligation to safeguard individual liberty, adding that any infringement of the right of consenting adults to marry by their own choice would amount to a constitutional violation.
The High Court directed the authorities to provide adequate security to the couple in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in earlier judgments concerning the right to choose a partner and protection from family or community interference.
However, the direction is subject to verification of the petitioners' ages and whether their marriage was solemnised in accordance with applicable laws. The court clarified that its order did not authenticate the marriage or conclusively establish their legal eligibility to marry.
It also said that if a First Information Report had been registered against either petitioner, the police could proceed with the investigation in accordance with the law.
Comments (0)