The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has reaffirmed that the state’s duty to protect life and personal liberty under Article 21 is triggered not by the legitimacy of a relationship, but by the credible apprehension of violence from third parties. This ruling establishes a critical procedural safeguard for couples facing familial or community-based threats due to consensual marriages, irrespective of the legal status of their union.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Harvinder Kour and Jasdeep Singh, allege that they are adults of marriageable age who solemnized their marriage on 23 January 2026 at an Arya Samaj mandir. They claim to be living together as husband and wife, but face sustained threats to their life and personal liberty from nine private respondents, including family members and community figures, who oppose their union.
Procedural History
The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking immediate protective measures. No criminal complaint had been registered at the time of filing, and no formal investigation had been initiated by the police. The petitioners sought judicial intervention to compel state authorities to assess the threat and provide necessary safeguards.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought directions to the state police and district authorities to provide them with immediate protection, prevent harassment by the private respondents, and ensure their safety while residing together.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the mere apprehension of threat to life or personal liberty arising from opposition to a consensual marriage, even without a registered FIR or proven criminal act, is sufficient to invoke the protective jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Puna Ram, argued that the petitioners’ right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is absolute and cannot be contingent upon the validity of their marriage. He cited Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. to emphasize that the choice of a life partner is intrinsic to personal autonomy. He further contended that the state has a positive obligation to prevent non-state actors from violating fundamental rights, and that apprehension of harm, if reasonable, justifies protective intervention.
For the Respondent
The state, represented by Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA, did not dispute the petitioners’ right to life or liberty but argued that the Court should not intervene in the absence of a formal complaint or evidence of imminent danger. The state maintained that police assessment of threat perception is a discretionary executive function and that judicial orders should not preempt administrative action.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the notion that protection must await a criminal act or formal complaint. It held that Article 21 imposes a proactive duty on the state to prevent harm, not merely to punish it after the fact. The Court emphasized that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity and freedom from fear, particularly in contexts where societal or familial pressure threatens personal autonomy.
"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 clarified that its role was not to validate the marriage or adjudicate the merits of the dispute, but to ensure that the state fulfills its constitutional obligation to protect citizens from foreseeable harm. It directed the Superintendent of Police to conduct a fair, non-adversarial hearing, assess the threat perception, and take calibrated action - without prejudging the legality of the relationship. The Court underscored that the absence of a criminal complaint does not negate the existence of a threat, especially in cases involving entrenched social opposition.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that apprehension of threat to life or personal liberty due to consensual marriage triggers the state’s constitutional duty to provide protection, irrespective of the marital status’s legal validity. The Superintendent of Police was directed to conduct a hearing and determine protective measures within ten days.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Protection Is Not Dependent on Marital Validity
- Practitioners must now argue that Article 21 protects individuals from extralegal threats regardless of whether their marriage is registered, religiously solemnized, or contested in civil court
- Courts may intervene under Article 226 even in the absence of an FIR or criminal charges if credible fear of violence is demonstrated
- Police cannot delay protection on grounds of pending civil litigation or family disputes
Threat Assessment Must Be Proactive, Not Reactive
- State authorities must initiate threat evaluation upon assertion of fear, not wait for physical harm or formal complaints
- Hearings under this order must be conducted with sensitivity, avoiding re-traumatization of petitioners
- Documentation of threats (e.g., messages, witness statements, prior incidents) should be recorded but need not be conclusive to trigger protection
Judicial Restraint on Merits Is Binding
- Courts must explicitly disclaim any determination on the validity of the relationship to avoid prejudicing future proceedings
- This judgment creates a procedural shield: protection orders under Article 226 do not constitute a finding on marriage validity and cannot be cited as precedent in civil or criminal matrimonial disputes
