The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that the right of major adults to marry freely, regardless of caste, is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty under Article 21. In a decisive order, the Court directed police authorities to protect a couple facing threats from the bride’s family for their inter-caste marriage, emphasizing that societal disapproval cannot justify harassment or inaction by the state.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, SVAYAM AGRAWAL and his wife, both aged 23, solemnized their marriage on 29 December 2025 under customary rites. The petitioner wife belongs to the Brahmin community, while the petitioner husband belongs to the Agrawal caste. Following the marriage, members of the wife’s family began threatening both petitioners with false criminal prosecution and physical harm, citing caste-based objections. Despite repeated written complaints to local police, no protective measures were taken.
Procedural History
- 29 December 2025: Petitioners solemnized marriage with valid marriage certificate and Aadhaar proof of age.
- January 2026: Petitioner No.2 filed an application with the Superintendent of Police, Damoh, seeking protection to safely relocate to her in-laws’ residence.
- January 2026: Writ petition filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur, seeking police protection and restraint against unlawful interference.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought: (1) immediate police protection for their safety and livelihood; (2) restraint on the respondent family from threatening or initiating false criminal proceedings; and (3) direction to police not to take any unauthorized action against them.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Article 21 of the Constitution protects the right of major adults to marry of their own free will, even against familial opposition, and whether police inaction in the face of credible threats constitutes a violation of this fundamental right.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel relied on Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India to argue that inter-caste marriage is a constitutionally protected exercise of personal autonomy. The counsel emphasized that threats of violence or false criminal cases by family members amount to coercion and violate dignity. The petitioners’ repeated complaints to police demonstrated state failure to uphold its duty under Article 21 and Section 154 CrPC to register and act on cognizable complaints.
For the Respondent
The Government Advocate did not dispute that the petitioners were majors or that the marriage was valid. However, he argued that the matter was pending investigation and that police could not be directed to provide protection without a formal complaint under Section 154 CrPC. He contended that judicial intervention was premature.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the State’s argument that procedural formalities could override the immediacy of a threat to life and liberty. It held that the right to choose a life partner is intrinsic to personal autonomy and cannot be conditioned on familial approval. The Court explicitly adopted the reasoning from Lata Singh, noting that caste-based opposition leading to threats or violence is not merely socially reprehensible - it is legally unlawful.
"The nation is passing through a crucial transitional period in our history, and this Court cannot remain silent in matters of great public concern, such as the present one."
The Court observed that police inaction in the face of credible threats transforms the state into a passive accomplice to potential violence. It emphasized that the duty to protect arises not only upon registration of an FIR but also when there is a reasonable apprehension of harm, as established in Shakti Vahini. The Court further noted that the petitioners had already submitted written complaints, fulfilling the threshold for state intervention.
The Court distinguished this case from routine matrimonial disputes by highlighting the systemic nature of caste-based intimidation and the imminent risk to life. It held that the State’s obligation under Article 21 is proactive, not reactive.
The Verdict
The petitioners won. The Court held that the right to marry of major adults is inviolable under Article 21, and police inaction in the face of caste-based threats violates constitutional obligations. The Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Damoh, to provide immediate protection to the petitioners and to take stern action against any person threatening them.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Police Protection Is Not Discretionary
- Practitioners must now argue that any credible threat to an inter-caste couple triggers an immediate duty to protect, irrespective of whether an FIR is filed.
- Failure to act may constitute a violation of Article 21, actionable through writ petitions under Article 226.
Caste-Based Threats Are Criminal, Not Cultural
- Threats to kill, injure, or falsely implicate couples for inter-caste marriage are not "family disputes" - they are cognizable offences under Sections 506, 503, and 120B IPC.
- Police must register FIRs and initiate investigations without delay; judicial orders can compel this.
Marriage Certificate Is Sufficient Proof of Legality
- A valid marriage certificate and proof of majority (Aadhaar, birth certificate) are conclusive evidence of lawful union.
- No court or authority may question the validity of such a marriage on grounds of caste, religion, or parental disapproval.
