In a significant reaffirmation of individual liberty and autonomy, the Delhi High Court has held that the right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners is a constitutionally protected facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that family disapproval or social opposition cannot operate as a fetter on such a choice.

The ruling came in a petition filed by a married couple who sought protection from threats allegedly extended by the woman’s family, particularly her mother and guardian, who vehemently disapproved of the relationship.

The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, while disposing of the plea, categorically observed:

“The right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners and to live together in peace is a facet of their personal liberty, privacy, and dignity protected under Article 21. Family disapproval cannot curtail that autonomy.”

The Court further directed the Delhi Police to ensure the couple’s safety and to take prompt action in the event of any threat to their lives and liberty.

Background of the Case

The Petitioners, Prince Tyagi and his wife, had lawfully solemnized their marriage. However, their union was strongly opposed by the woman’s family. The petition alleged that her legal guardian, who is also her mother, had repeatedly issued threats to her, including threats of physical harm, in an attempt to prevent her from continuing the relationship.

Faced with increasing hostility and apprehending danger to her life, the woman voluntarily left her parental home. Before doing so, she duly informed her mother of her intention to marry her partner. She subsequently entered into marriage with the Petitioner, thereby exercising her free will and lawful choice.

Upon her leaving home, a “missing person” inquiry was initiated by the Delhi Police. However, the inquiry was formally closed once the woman herself confirmed that she had married the Petitioner of her own volition and had not been coerced or wrongfully confined. The police also informed the Court that her mother was duly apprised of the closure of the inquiry and of the woman’s status as a voluntarily married individual.

Court’s Observations and Findings

Taking into account the police status report and the voluntary nature of the woman’s marriage, Justice Narula observed that no further direction was necessary with respect to the missing person inquiry. The Court acknowledged the Petitioners’ apprehensions regarding threats from the woman’s family and recognized their right to live together without interference.

Reiterating constitutional principles, the Court highlighted that personal choices in matters of marriage and companionship are intrinsically linked to Article 21, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty. It observed that the freedom of two consenting adults to marry or cohabit cannot be curtailed by familial objections, social norms, or community pressure.

Directions Issued by the Court

While disposing of the petition, the Court directed the Delhi Police to extend immediate protection to the couple. Specific instructions were given to the Station House Officer (SHO) of the concerned jurisdictional police station to:

1. Assign a beat officer for monitoring the couple’s safety and well-being.
2. Enter a Daily Diary (DD) entry and extend immediate assistance upon receiving any complaint of threat from the couple.
3. Maintain effective coordination by requiring the Petitioners’ counsel to provide the Investigating Officer with the couple’s current residential address and contact details.

The Court made it clear that any threat to the life or liberty of the Petitioners must be dealt with promptly and effectively by law enforcement agencies.

Broader Legal Context

This judgment is part of a growing body of jurisprudence that protects the autonomy of individuals in making personal choices, especially in matters of marriage. The Supreme Court, in landmark rulings such as Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) and Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) [the Hadiya case], has consistently held that adults are free to marry a partner of their choice, and such a choice is protected under the Constitution.

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Prince Tyagi & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. echoes these principles by reiterating that family opposition, even when strongly expressed, cannot override the fundamental right of adults to choose their partners and live with dignity.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Court reaffirmed that consenting adults enjoy an unfettered right to choose their life partners and that such a right is firmly grounded in constitutional values of liberty, dignity, and privacy. By directing the Delhi Police to ensure the couple’s safety and monitor any threats, the Court provided not only legal recognition but also tangible protection for the Petitioners’ autonomy.

Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.

Cause Title: Prince Tyagi & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.