The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that the state has a constitutional obligation to assess and mitigate credible threats to individuals in consensual relationships, even when the legality of the relationship remains unproven. The judgment emphasizes that Article 21 protects personal liberty irrespective of societal approval, and police authorities must act proactively to prevent vigilante violence.
The Verdict
The petitioners won. The High Court held that apprehension of threat to life and personal liberty under Article 21 triggers a duty on the state to conduct a formal threat assessment, regardless of whether the underlying marriage is legally validated. The court directed the petitioners to submit a written representation to the Superintendent of Police, who must then hold a hearing and determine whether protective measures are warranted. No definitive finding was made on the validity of the marriage.
Background & Facts
The petitioners, a young couple aged 18 and 27, claimed to have solemnized their marriage on January 16, 2026, at an Arya Samaj mandir. They allege that the private respondents, who are relatives of the male petitioner, oppose the union and have issued threats to their lives and personal safety. The petitioners, who reside together as husband and wife, sought protection under Article 226 of the Constitution, fearing violence or abduction by the private respondents.
The petition was filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. No criminal complaint had been registered at the time of filing, and no prior judicial order on the marriage’s validity existed. The petitioners did not seek annulment or recognition of marriage; their sole request was for state protection against perceived threats.
The respondents, including state police officials and private individuals, did not contest the factual assertion of threats in detail. Instead, they argued that the court should not intervene in what they characterized as a private family dispute pending investigation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a mere apprehension of threat to life and personal liberty, arising from societal opposition to a consensual relationship, is sufficient to invoke the protective jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, even in the absence of a final determination on the legality of the relationship.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners’ counsel argued that Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty without qualification, and that the state’s duty to protect this right is triggered by credible apprehension of harm. They cited multiple precedents where courts have intervened to protect couples from honor-based threats, emphasizing that the state cannot defer action pending civil or criminal adjudication. The counsel stressed that the petitioners were adults capable of choosing their partner, and that societal disapproval cannot justify state inaction.
For the Respondent
The state respondents contended that the court should not grant protection without a registered FIR or concrete evidence of imminent danger. They argued that the petitioners’ claims were speculative and that the matter should be left to the police for investigation under existing criminal procedure. They further asserted that the court’s intervention would prejudice any future proceedings regarding the validity of the marriage.
The Court's Analysis
The court rejected the notion that protection under Article 21 is contingent upon prior judicial validation of the relationship. It held that the right to life and liberty is not conditional upon societal or familial approval. The court emphasized that the state’s obligation to protect citizens from threats is proactive, not reactive.
"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 adjudicate the validity of the marriage but to ensure that the state fulfills its constitutional duty to prevent unlawful harm. It distinguished this case from those involving disputed custody or property, noting that threats to physical safety demand immediate institutional response.
The court also rejected the argument that police inaction could be justified by the absence of an FIR. It held that the duty to prevent crime and maintain public order does not require a formal complaint to be triggered. The Superintendent of Police was directed to conduct a hearing, assess the threat perception, and take calibrated action, including inter-district coordination if necessary.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment establishes a clear procedural pathway for individuals facing threats due to consensual relationships, particularly in interfaith or inter-caste unions. Practitioners can now rely on this ruling to seek immediate protective orders under Article 226 without waiting for criminal proceedings to commence. The requirement to submit a written representation and undergo a formal hearing provides a structured, non-adversarial mechanism for threat assessment.
The ruling does not validate or invalidate any marriage; it only mandates state protection based on apprehension of harm. This limits its applicability to cases involving credible threats, not mere social disapproval. Future petitions must demonstrate a reasonable basis for fear, but need not prove the existence of violence. The judgment reinforces that police authorities cannot defer their duty to protect on grounds of procedural incompleteness.
This precedent is especially relevant in states where honor-based violence remains prevalent. It empowers lawyers to file writ petitions as a preventive measure, shifting the burden from the victim to the state to act.
