The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 extends to adult individuals in consensual relationships facing threats due to societal or familial opposition. In a decisive order, the Court directed police authorities to assess threat perception and provide protective measures without prejudging the validity of the marriage, setting a clear precedent for safeguarding personal autonomy against extralegal coercion.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Champa (aged about 19 years) and Narendra Sirwi (aged about 25 years), are an adult couple who claim to have solemnized their marriage on 07.05.2026. They allege that the private respondent, Narendra Sirwi’s father, opposes the marriage and has been extending threats to their life and personal liberty. The petitioners, who assert they have attained the age of majority and are legally marriageable, are residing together as husband and wife and fear violence or abduction due to familial disapproval.
Key Facts
- The petitioners are both above the legal age of marriage under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006
- The marriage was solemnized on 07.05.2026
- The private respondent, Narendra Sirwi’s father, is alleged to be the source of threats
- No FIR or criminal complaint has been registered by the petitioners prior to filing this writ petition
- The petitioners have not sought protection under any existing legal framework such as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Procedural History
- 07.05.2026: Alleged marriage solemnized
- Before 15.05.2026: Petitioners approached police for protection; no effective response received
- 15.05.2026: Criminal Writ Petition No. 2207/2026 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Assert that their right to life, liberty, and choice of partner under Article 21 is being violated by threats from the private respondent. They seek immediate protective measures from state authorities.
Respondents (State): Did not file a detailed counter-affidavit but appeared through the Public Prosecutor, who did not oppose the prayer for protection, acknowledging the duty of police to maintain law and order.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought directions to the State and police officials to provide immediate protection to their lives and personal liberty, including deployment of security personnel, monitoring of the private respondent, and issuance of a protective order under Article 226.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court, under Article 226, can direct police authorities to assess threat perception and provide protective measures to adult individuals in a consensual relationship, even in the absence of a registered FIR or criminal complaint, when they allege a credible apprehension of harm to life and personal liberty.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioners relied on the principle that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to choose one’s partner and to live free from fear of violence. He cited Nitu & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1/2026, decided on 05.01.2026) to argue that apprehension of threat, however unproven, must be examined by the police as a matter of constitutional duty. He emphasized that the Court’s role is not to validate the marriage but to ensure the petitioners’ safety while the matter remains under investigation.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor did not contest the petitioners’ claim. He acknowledged the police’s statutory duty under Section 151 CrPC to prevent cognizable offences and to act proactively where there is a reasonable apprehension of breach of peace. He submitted that the police are best placed to evaluate threat perception and that the Court’s intervention was appropriate to compel action.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of Article 226 in the context of preventive protection and the state’s positive obligation under Article 21. It noted that while the legitimacy of the marriage or the truth of the allegations remains unverified, the petitioners’ apprehension of harm is sufficient to trigger the state’s duty to protect life and liberty.
"The right to life and personal liberty is a fundamental right guaranteed to every individual under the Constitution, and the same cannot be compromised under any circumstances. No person can be deprived of his or her life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law and apprehension relating to life and personal liberty, if asserted, deserves to be examined by the competent authority."
The Court held that the assessment of threat perception is a function of the police, not the judiciary. It declined to make any determination on the validity of the marriage or the veracity of the allegations, clarifying that such matters remain open for investigation by competent authorities. The Court emphasized that the police must act as neutral arbiters, not agents of social conformity, and must conduct a fair hearing before deciding on protective measures.
The Court further clarified that its order does not preclude any future civil or criminal proceedings, including those under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act or the Indian Penal Code, should evidence emerge.
The Verdict
The writ petition was disposed of with directions. The petitioners must appear before the Superintendent of Police, Pali within ten days of the order to submit a written representation detailing the persons from whom they apprehend threat. The Superintendent shall afford a hearing to the petitioners and, if necessary, to the private respondent, evaluate the threat perception, and pass appropriate orders to ensure their safety. The Superintendent may coordinate with the concerned Station House Officers for implementation. Pending applications are disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Protection Is Not Dependent on Criminal Complaint
- Practitioners can now file writ petitions under Article 226 even without an FIR when adult couples face credible threats to life or liberty due to consensual relationships
- The threshold for invoking protective jurisdiction is apprehension of harm, not proof of actual violence
- Police cannot refuse protection on grounds that no crime has been registered
Judicial Restraint on Marriage Validity Is Binding
- Courts will not adjudicate the validity of marriages between consenting adults in protection petitions
- Any challenge to marriage under personal laws or statutes must be pursued separately in civil or criminal forums
- Observations in protection orders cannot be used as precedent in other proceedings
Police Must Conduct Neutral Threat Assessment
- Superintendents of Police are now under a clear duty to conduct hearings and document threat assessments
- Failure to act may render the state liable for violation of Article 21
- Coordination with local SHOs is mandatory for effective implementation
