The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that the freedom to choose one’s life partner is a fundamental right under Article 21, protecting individual liberty, privacy, and dignity from family or societal interference in matters of marriage and companionship.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a ruling that reinforces constitutional protections for individual liberty, the Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the freedom to choose a life partner is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, delivering the judgment, emphasized that neither family nor community can interfere in the decision of two consenting adults to marry or cohabit. The court observed that such freedom forms the core of personal autonomy, a right that lies at the heart of the Indian Constitution.
Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, Justice Narula noted that caste continues to exert a strong social influence in Indian society. However, inter-caste marriages, he said, serve an important constitutional and societal function, promoting social integration and weakening caste-based divisions.
“Such unions, the Supreme Court has observed, are in the national interest and must receive firm protection from any familial or communal interference,” the High Court noted in its order dated November 4.
Petition Filed by Inter-Caste Couple
The observations came during the hearing of a petition filed by an inter-caste couple who had been in a relationship for 11 years and now intended to marry.
The couple approached the High Court seeking protection from the Delhi Police, stating that they were facing threats and opposition from their family members, including the mother, sister, brother-in-law, and other relatives. They requested the court to ensure their safety and prevent any interference with their decision to marry.
Delhi Police Directed to Conduct Threat Assessment
In response, the counsel for the Delhi Police informed the court that the couple had already been provided with the contact details of a designated constable for assistance. The police assured that steps were being taken to ensure the couple’s safety.
The High Court directed the Station House Officer (SHO) to conduct a “brief threat assessment” of the couple without delay. Based on the assessment, the SHO must take all preventive measures permissible under law, including:
- Maintaining appropriate diary entries,
- Patrolling near the couple’s residence, and
- Taking any necessary steps to deter harassment or intimidation.
The court also instructed that if the couple reports any threat or interference, the police must register a DD entry, extend immediate protection, and act in accordance with the law.
Justice Narula clarified that the directions issued were preventive and protective in nature, and the court did not express any opinion on the truthfulness of the allegations made against the respondents.
