Topic
The Uttarakhand HC directed the Kashipur SHO to assess threats and provide police protection to an interfaith couple. It held that the state must protect couples facing familial threats, citing the Lata Singh precedent.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that state police must independently evaluate threat claims by interfaith couples under Article 21, regardless of whether an FIR has been filed. This sets a critical precedent for preventive state protection in cases of familial opposition, affirming that the right to life and liberty includes proactive safeguarding, not just reactive intervention.
Madras High Court reaffirms that an adult's voluntary marriage and religious conversion cannot be overridden by parental opposition, upholding personal liberty under Article 21. The ruling clarifies that habeas corpus petitions are not maintainable where the detenu's free will is established, reinforcing adult autonomy in matrimonial and religious choices.
The Rajasthan High Court holds that apprehension of threat to life in consensual marriages triggers state duty to assess protection needs under Article 21, without adjudicating marital validity.