The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that the right to life under Article 21 encompasses protection from familial harassment arising from voluntary marriages between major adults. This ruling reinforces the constitutional sanctity of personal choice in matters of marriage and mandates proactive state intervention to safeguard individuals from honour-based threats.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Arti Karma and others, are adult individuals who entered into a marriage of their own volition. Their families have since subjected them to threats and harassment, allegedly to oppose the union. The petitioners, fearing for their lives, approached the Court seeking immediate police protection.
Procedural History
The petition was filed directly under Article 226 of the Constitution, bypassing lower forums due to the urgency of life-threatening circumstances. No prior complaint had been registered with police, as the petitioners feared retaliation.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Immediate police protection
- Direction to authorities to prevent harassment by family members
- Legal recognition of their right to marry without fear of violence
The Parties' Positions
The petitioners submitted:
- Photocopies of Aadhaar cards and birth records to establish majority
- Photographs of the marriage ceremony as evidence of voluntary union
- Affidavits detailing threats received from relatives
The State did not contest the factual assertions but urged procedural compliance with existing police protocols.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Article 21 of the Constitution entitles major adults in a voluntary marriage to state-protected safety from familial harassment, even in the absence of a formal complaint or FIR.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 2006 SC 2522) to assert that the right to choose a life partner is intrinsic to personal liberty under Article 21. They further cited Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192, which mandates police action against honour-based threats, arguing that passive non-intervention by authorities violates the state’s positive obligation under Article 21.
For the Respondent
The State did not dispute the legal principles but emphasized that police protection must follow due process: identification of threats, recording of statements, and verification of documents. It contended that blanket protection without procedural grounding could lead to misuse.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the evolution of jurisprudence on personal autonomy in marriage, beginning with Lata Singh, which declared that "adults have the right to marry whomever they choose, and no one has the right to interfere." The Court then turned to Shakti Vahini, which held that "honour killings and threats are not social issues but constitutional violations requiring immediate state response."
"If the petitioners are major and have entered into the marriage voluntarily, then they should not be harassed by any one just because they have objection with their marriage."
The Court rejected the notion that police protection requires a prior FIR or formal complaint. It emphasized that Article 21 imposes a positive duty on the state to prevent foreseeable harm, especially when threats are credible and life is at risk. The Court noted that the petitioners had provided documentary evidence of age and marriage, which, though not original, were sufficient for preliminary verification under emergency conditions.
The Court further clarified that the obligation to act arises not from the existence of a crime but from the imminent threat to life. The state’s failure to act in such circumstances would amount to a violation of the right to live with dignity.
The Verdict
The petitioners prevailed. The Court held that major adults in voluntary marriages are entitled to immediate police protection against familial harassment, and directed authorities to act upon their statements and documents without delay. The Court mandated proactive intervention by the Superintendent of Police, Dewas, in line with Shakti Vahini.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Police Protection Is Not Conditional on FIR
- Practitioners can now file writ petitions seeking police protection even without a registered FIR if credible threats to life exist
- Courts may treat affidavits and documentary evidence (Aadhaar, photographs) as sufficient for preliminary relief
- Delay in filing an FIR cannot be used to deny constitutional protection
State Must Act Proactively on Honour-Based Threats
- Authorities cannot wait for victims to "prove" danger beyond doubt before acting
- The burden shifts to the state to verify threats and initiate protective measures
- SHOs and SPs must be trained to recognize honour-based coercion as a constitutional emergency
Documentary Evidence Suffices for Preliminary Relief
- Photocopies of Aadhaar and marriage photos are admissible for interim protection orders
- Original documents may be demanded later, but not as a precondition for safety
- Courts will not require perfection in documentation when life is at stake
