Choice to marry someone from different faith safeguarded by Constitution: Delhi High Court

Observation made in a plea filed by a 26-year-old Muslim man and a 25-year-old Hindu woman, seeking police protection and accommodation in a safe house

New Delhi

The choice to marry someone from a different faith is safeguarded under the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, even if it challenges social norms and family expectations, the Delhi High Court has held. (Representative photo)

The choice to marry someone from a different faith is safeguarded under the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, even if it challenges social norms and family expectations, the Delhi High Court has held, while directing the Delhi Police to continue protecting an interfaith couple facing threats from their families.

A bench of justice Sanjeev Narula made the observation on August 8, while dealing with a plea filed by a 26-year-old Muslim man and a 25-year-old Hindu woman, seeking police protection and accommodation in a safe house.

In a petition filed last month, the couple asserted that despite solemnising their marriage after a relationship of over seven years, there was strong opposition from the woman’s family. The petition said that despite writing to the deputy commissioner of police for the southeast district on July 23, requesting police protection, the police forcibly separated the woman from her husband and detained her at Nirmal Chhaya Shelter Home on July 24. The plea stated that the woman married the man voluntarily, without any coercion.

On July 25, the high court directed the DCP to look into the matter personally and, if the woman affirmed her wish to live with her husband, to ensure appropriate arrangements for the couple’s safety.

The counsel for the woman’s father, on August 8, asserted that his client was deeply troubled by his daughter’s decision to marry the man without his consent and that he was concerned for his daughter’s welfare.

Considering the contentions, the court directed Delhi Police to continue providing them protection and accommodation in a safe house, till they solemnise their marriage under the Special Marriage Act.

The bench said that parents’ anguish over their daughter choosing her life partner without consultation cannot eclipse the right of an adult to choose a life partner, since Article 21 of the Constitution safeguards an individual’s right to marry a person of one’s choice.

“The constitutional guarantee under Article 21 enables every adult citizen may shape the course of their own life, free from fear, coercion or unlawful restraint. The choice to marry, especially across lines of faith, may test the resilience of social norms and familial expectations, yet in law, it remains a matter of personal liberty and individual autonomy, immune from any external veto. While the anguish of a parent is understandable, it cannot eclipse the rights of a major to select their life partner,” the court said.

It added, “The court is mindful of the anguish of the girl’s father, who opposes the relationship on grounds that he perceives as legitimate and rooted in his concern for his daughter’s welfare. However, upon attaining the age of majority, the right to make decisions regarding marriage becomes the individual’s personal prerogative. Parental preference, however well-intentioned, cannot legally override that autonomy.”

Noting the couple’s allegation of being forcibly separated, the court directed the DCP to submit a report on whether any unlawful separation had occurred and, if so, to identify the officer responsible. The direction came after the woman claimed she was taken to a shelter home by the police against her will, while the police maintained that no coercion, unlawful action, or procedural lapse had taken place.

The matter will next be heard on September 12.

The same bench, in a similar plea filed by another couple, also ruled that a family’s disapproval cannot override the right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners and live together peacefully. “The right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners and to live together in peace is a facet of their personal liberty, privacy, and dignity protected under Article 21. Family disapproval cannot curtail that autonomy,” the court said in an order on August 5.