‘Blocking personal choice strikes at core of dignity’: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court protects married couple

Person’s choice an integral part of their dignity

• The petitioners are major and got married in August 2024 as per Muslim Personal Law rites and customs.
• When two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is the manifestation of their choice recognised under Articles 19 (Freedom of Speech) and 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution.
• Such a right is recognised in the Constitution and should be protected as it cannot succumb to the notion of “class, honour or group thinking”.
• The consent of the family or community, or clan, is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock.
• The consent of the partners has to be given primacy in such matters.
• The concept of liberty should be analysed on the touchstone of “constitutional sensitivity”, “protection” and the “values” it stands for.
• The courts have the obligation to “zealously” guard the Right to Liberty of an individual since the dignified existence of an individual has an inseparable association with liberty.
• Life and liberty without dignity and choice would render the constitutional right of identity “hollow”.
• When two adults marry of their own choice, they choose their path and continue their relationship as they feel that it is their goal, and have the right to do so.
• The adults have the right, and any infringement of the said right is a “constitutional violation”.
• The choice of an individual is an integral part of dignity since dignity cannot be considered where there is erosion of choice, and no one should be permitted to interfere with the same.

‘Against wishes of relatives’

• Representing the petitioner, advocate Nazia Fazal argued that her clients are major, have contracted a marriage out of their free will and are living as husband and wife.
• The petitioner also submitted that since they have contracted the marriage against the wishes of their relatives, they are scared to be subjected to physical violence and harassment at the hands of their relatives.
• Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli appeared for the state in the case.

‘State obligated to protect’

In another case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted protection to an unmarried couple who were in a live-in relationship and were allegedly threatened by the family members of one of them.

“The state is obligated to protect the life and liberty of such couples, even if they are not married but are in a live-in relationship,” the court ruled in its 2025 order.

‘Fundamental right on high pedestal’

In another case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the police to take “necessary steps” to protect a couple from threats who were in a live-in relationship.

While hearing the matter, Justice Subhas Mehla noted that the fundamental right to life stands at such a high pedestal that it must be protected even in the absence of a valid marriage between the parties.

“The fundamental right to life and liberty is so sacrosanct and stands at such a high pedestal that it must be protected even in the absence of an incident like solemnisation of a valid marriage between the parties,” the 2025 order said.

‘Constitutional manifestation’

In another unrelated case, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court granted protection to a couple that married against their families’ wishes, observing that the right of two adults to consensually choose each other as life partners is a “constitutional manifestation” of choice and consent of family, community, or clan, and is not necessary.

The married couple filed a plea stating apprehension of physical violence since they married against the will of their relatives.

“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,” Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi observed on February 3.