‘Family consent not necessary’: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court steps in to protect couple married against parents

Life and liberty without dignity and choice allows hollowness to enter into the identity of a person, said Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court. (File photo)

‘Family consent not necessary’

• Consent of family or community or clan is not necessary, once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock and their consent has to be piously given primacy.
• The concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, protection and values it stands for.
• It is the obligation of the constitutional courts as the sentinel on qui vive to zealously guard the right to liberty of an individual, as the dignified existence of an individual has an inseparable association with liberty.
• “On the qui vive” is an idiomatic phrase meaning to be on the alert, watchful, or on guard, often in anticipation of danger or to spot potential issues.
• Life and liberty sans dignity and choice is a phenomenon that allows hollowness to enter into the constitutional recognition of identity of a person.
• The choice of an individual is an extricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of where there is erosion of choice and no one shall be permitted to interfere in the fructification of said choice.
• If the right to express one’s own choice is obstructed, it would be extremely difficult to think of dignity in its sanctified completeness.
• When two adults, consensually, choose each other as life partners, it is the manifestation of their choice that is recognised under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
• Such a right has the sanction of constitutional law and once that is recognised, the said right needs to be protected and it cannot succumb to conception of class, honour or group thinking.

Directions

• While disposing of the petition, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court directed the union territory authorities, including the principal secretary (Home), the director general of police, and the senior superintendents of police in Rajouri and Jammu to provide adequate protection to the couple after assessing the threat perception.
• The court also directed officials to act in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, landmark rulings that mandate protection for couples facing threats due to inter-caste or inter-community marriages.
• However, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court imposed safeguards.
• It clarified that authorities must verify that both petitioners are indeed majors and that the marriage has been solemnised in accordance with prevailing law.
• Additionally, if any FIR exists against either of the petitioners, the police may proceed with investigation strictly in accordance with law.

Protection not authentication

• The court made it clear that granting protection does not amount to judicial authentication of the marriage or confirmation of the parties’ age.
• “Needless to say, that the disposal of the instant Petition does not authenticate the marriage of the Petitioners or their age/majority to enter into marriage,” the order of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court stated, adding that compliance with statutory requirements remains subject to verification.

Plea for safety

• Naseem Akhter and Zulafqar Ali, a young couple, approached the high court stating that they had married out of love and free will on February 1, 2026, in accordance with Muslim Personal Law, rites and customs.
• Both petitioners asserted that they are majors and had entered into the marriage voluntarily.
• However, their decision to wed without family approval, they claimed, had exposed them to threats, harassment and the real fear of physical violence from relatives opposed to their union.
• Left with little option, the couple approached the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court seeking police protection to safeguard their life and liberty.