The Delhi High Court’s judgment earlier this month in Aanchal v State (NCT of Delhi) is the latest contribution to a growing body of jurisprudence that is, in substance if not in name, shaping a constitutional “right to love” in India. The judgment reinforces the reasoning upheld in previous landmark rulings of the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v State of UP (2006) and further crystallised in Shafin Jahan v Asokan (2018), Shakti Vahini v Union of India (2018) as well as Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) affirming that consenting adults have an unqualified right to choose their partner, free from state or societal interference. While the case in Aanchal involved an inter-caste couple facing threats from the woman’s family, the Court’s reasoning applies to interfaith couples navigating suspicion and administrative obstacles as well as same-sex couples denied legal recognition.
The judicial reasoning in Aanchal has significant implications for groups whose relationships remain heavily policed. By explicitly linking caste endogamy to systemic discrimination, the judgment underscores the hostility directed toward couples who transgress caste, religious, or gender boundaries. Interfaith couples in several states, such as Uttar Pradesh, routinely face intrusive inquiry and even violence under anti-conversion laws (the so-called “love jihad” laws) that treat their unions as inherently suspect. Similarly, same-sex couples, despite the decriminalisation of Section 377, continue to navigate a legal landscape devoid of fully articulated legal protections. But court interventions have been quietly constructing a framework in which intimate choices are treated as an essential facet of personal liberty.
The Delhi HC’s directions to the police in Aanchal — mandating threat assessments, preventive measures, and immediate protection upon reports of harassment — reflect an increasing judicial willingness to operationalise constitutional safeguards in such cases. These orders are not ancillary; they are central to the constitutional promise of liberty. They translate abstract rights into enforceable protections, especially in situations where the greatest threat to a couple’s autonomy comes not from the state but from their own families.
This emerging jurisprudence around the “right to love” has profound implications in a society where love across lines of caste and religion is considered deeply transgressive. At the same time, the frequency of such petitions exposes a troubling contradiction. Even as courts articulate robust rights-based protections, the social and administrative ecosystem remains deeply hostile to non-conforming relationships. That couples must seek judicial intervention simply to live without fear underscores the persistence of caste, religious, and patriarchal control over matters of intimate choices. The judiciary’s reliance on constitutional morality is often countered by entrenched social morality that privileges community sanction over individual autonomy.
Yet within this tension lies the transformative potential of this emerging jurisprudence. Courts are not merely resolving interpersonal disputes; they are giving substantive meaning to Article 21’s promise of a life with dignity. And while judicial protection cannot by itself dismantle structures of caste and patriarchy, it provides the legal scaffolding for individuals to challenge them.
The writer is a gender and sexuality rights researcher
