The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that major individuals who voluntarily enter into marriage are entitled to state protection against familial harassment, reinforcing the constitutional right to personal autonomy under Article 21. This ruling provides clear judicial backing for couples facing threats due to inter-caste or inter-faith unions, setting a practical framework for police intervention.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Bhawana Bhilala and others, are major individuals who entered into a voluntary marital relationship. Their families have allegedly subjected them to harassment, threats, and intimidation due to objections to their marriage. The petitioners submitted photocopies of their Aadhaar cards and academic mark sheets to establish their age and photographs of their marriage ceremony as proof of union. They fear for their lives and sought immediate police protection to prevent violence or abduction.
Procedural History
The petition was filed directly before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore under Article 226 of the Constitution. No prior proceedings were initiated in lower courts, as the urgency of the threat necessitated direct judicial intervention.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought an order directing the State Police to provide immediate protection, ensure their safety, and prevent any interference by family members in their marital life.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether major individuals who voluntarily marry are entitled to police protection under Article 21 when facing threats from family members due to their choice of partner.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners’ counsel relied on Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India to argue that the right to choose a life partner is an intrinsic part of personal liberty under Article 21. They contended that familial harassment amounting to threats to life or liberty triggers the State’s positive obligation to protect citizens, especially when the individuals are adults and the marriage is consensual. The submission emphasized that police inaction in such cases amounts to complicity in violation of fundamental rights.
For the Respondent
The State did not oppose the petition. The Public Prosecutor acknowledged the petitioners’ status as major adults and conceded that threats to their safety, if substantiated, warranted police intervention. No counter-arguments were advanced against the legal principles cited.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the evolution of jurisprudence on the right to marry, beginning with Lata Singh v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court held that adults have the right to marry whomever they choose, and any interference by family or society is unlawful. The Court then turned to Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, which established that the State has a constitutional duty to protect couples from honor-based violence and to ensure their safety through proactive police measures.
"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 emphasized that the petitioners had provided prima facie evidence of age and marriage, which, in the absence of any contrary evidence, sufficed to establish their entitlement. The Court rejected any notion that parental disapproval or social stigma could override constitutional rights. It further held that the State’s duty to protect is not contingent on prior incidents of violence but arises from the credible apprehension of threat.
The Court also clarified that police protection is not a discretionary privilege but a mandatory obligation under Article 21 when the conditions of voluntary marriage and credible threat are met.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that major individuals in voluntary marriages are entitled to police protection against familial harassment, and directed the Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh, to record statements and take immediate action if threats are verified, in accordance with Shakti Vahini. The State was ordered to ensure compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Police Protection Is a Right, Not a Favor
- Practitioners must now treat applications for police protection in love marriage cases as mandatory rights under Article 21, not discretionary requests
- Courts will no longer require proof of prior violence - credible apprehension suffices
- Police stations must be trained to recognize and respond to such petitions without delay
Documentation Requirements Are Minimal
- Photocopies of Aadhaar and academic records are sufficient for age verification
- Photographs of marriage ceremonies can serve as prima facie proof of union
- No formal marriage certificate is mandatory to trigger protection
State Accountability Is Now Explicit
- Failure to act on verified threats may constitute a violation of Article 21 and invite contempt proceedings
- The order mandates communication of the judgment to the Advocate General, creating a chain of administrative accountability
- District magistrates and SPs must now treat such petitions as high-priority constitutional matters
