The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed the constitutional right to life and liberty under Article 21 by directing state authorities to protect an inter-caste married couple from harassment. The judgment underscores that major individuals have the freedom to marry of their own free will, and any interference or threats violate their fundamental rights. The Court also mandated marriage registration within two months, linking legal recognition to continued protection.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Suhani Yadav (aged 19) and her husband (aged 22), approached the Allahabad High Court seeking protection from harassment and threats. They alleged that their inter-caste marriage, solemnized on 8.4.2026 at Mankameshwar Hanuman Mandir, Ismailganj, Lucknow, had exposed them to risks from societal or familial opposition. No First Information Report (FIR) had been lodged against them at the time of filing the petition.
Key Facts
- Petitioner No. 1 (Suhani Yadav) was born on 7.12.2007, as per her High School Marksheet (Annexure 2).
- Petitioner No. 2 was born on 1.1.2004, as per his Aadhar Card.
- The marriage was conducted with mutual consent, and both petitioners are majors.
- The petitioners sought protection under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and liberty with dignity.
Procedural History
- 8.4.2026: Marriage solemnized.
- 2026: Writ petition (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6431 of 2026) filed before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.
- 8.7.2026: Judgment delivered by the Division Bench.
Relief Sought
The petitioners prayed for:
- A writ of mandamus directing the state to protect their life and liberty.
- An order restraining the respondents from harassing, threatening, or interfering in their peaceful matrimonial life.
- Directions to ensure their safety and non-interference by state authorities or third parties.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the state is obligated to protect the life and liberty of a major couple who have married of their own free will, particularly in cases involving inter-caste marriages, and whether such protection can be denied in the absence of an FIR or pending criminal proceedings.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- Cited Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Another (2006 (5) SCC 475), emphasizing that the state must protect couples from harassment or violence, especially in inter-caste or inter-religious marriages.
- Invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, arguing that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity and without fear of harassment.
- Highlighted the absence of any FIR or criminal proceedings against them, asserting their entitlement to protection.
For the Respondent
- The state, represented by the Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.), did not contest the petitioners' claims but submitted to the Court's jurisdiction for appropriate directions.
The Court's Analysis
The Court relied on the precedent set in Lata Singh, which explicitly directs state authorities to protect couples who marry of their own free will, particularly in inter-caste or inter-religious marriages. The judgment in Lata Singh holds that:
"The administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a women or man who is a major, the couple is not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law."
The Court observed that the petitioners, being majors, had exercised their right to marry without coercion. The absence of an FIR or criminal proceedings against them further strengthened their claim for protection. The Court also linked the right to protection with the obligation to register the marriage under the Uttar Pradesh Marriages Registration Rules, 2017, within two months. Failure to comply would result in the automatic cessation of the protection order.
The Verdict
The Allahabad High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
- The respondents are directed not to interfere in the peaceful life and liberty of the petitioners.
- The protection order shall automatically stand discharged if any FIR is registered against the petitioners on the issue.
- The petitioners must register their marriage under the Uttar Pradesh Marriages Registration Rules, 2017 within two months from the date of the judgment (8.7.2026). Failure to do so will result in the automatic termination of the protection order.
- The Registrar of Marriages concerned is directed to process and issue the registration certificate to the petitioners as per law at the earliest.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Protection Is a Fundamental Right, Not a Privilege
- The judgment reaffirms that Article 21 guarantees the right to life and liberty, which includes protection from harassment for couples who marry of their own free will.
- State authorities are legally obligated to protect such couples, particularly in inter-caste or inter-religious marriages, as held in Lata Singh.
- Practitioners can cite this judgment to argue for protection orders even in the absence of an FIR, provided the couple is major and the marriage is consensual.
Marriage Registration as a Condition for Continued Protection
- The Court has introduced a conditional protection mechanism by linking it to marriage registration. This sets a precedent where legal recognition of the marriage is a prerequisite for continued state protection.
- Couples seeking protection must ensure compliance with registration requirements within the stipulated timeline to avoid automatic termination of the protection order.
Limits of Protection: FIR as a Trigger for Discharge
- The protection order is not absolute and will automatically stand discharged if an FIR is registered against the petitioners. This underscores the importance of maintaining a clean legal record to retain state protection.
- Practitioners must advise clients to avoid actions that could lead to criminal proceedings, as this would nullify the protection granted by the Court.
