by Babra Wani
SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has directed the Union Territory administration to provide immediate protection to a young couple who married against their families’ wishes, reaffirming that the right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners is protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Delivering the judgment at the Jammu wing on April 16, 2025, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed that individual choice in marriage is an inseparable part of personal dignity and liberty. The ruling came in response to a petition filed by Anamika Devi and her husband, who sought protection after marrying on March 26 according to Hindu rites and customs. The couple alleged that their inter-caste marriage had provoked strong opposition and threats from their families.
After verifying that both petitioners were adults and that their marriage had been solemnised in accordance with law, the Court held that the plea was not for validation of the marriage but for the protection of the couple’s fundamental right to life and liberty. Justice Nargal observed that when two adults voluntarily choose each other as life partners, that choice is a constitutional expression of dignity and autonomy which must be safeguarded by the State.
“The right to marry a person of one’s choice has the sanction of constitutional law, and once recognised, it must be protected. It cannot succumb to the conception of class, honour, or group thinking,” the judgment read. The Court stressed that family or community consent was irrelevant once two adults had freely decided to marry.
Directing the police to verify the couple’s age and marriage documents, the High Court ordered the authorities to provide security as per the law and in line with Supreme Court judgments in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006) and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018). These rulings mandate that the State must protect couples facing threats or violence for marrying across caste, community, or religious lines.
Justice Nargal clarified that the Court’s direction was confined to ensuring protection and did not amount to authentication of the marriage. He added that if any criminal case was pending against either petitioner, the police were free to proceed as per law.
The judgment drew upon landmark Supreme Court decisions that expanded the scope of individual liberty. In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018), the apex court had ruled that the right to marry a person of one’s choice was integral to Article 21, while in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), it held that constitutional morality must prevail over societal norms.
The High Court’s ruling comes amid continued reports of honour-based violence across India. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, dozens of honour killings are reported annually, though experts believe many cases go unrecorded due to social pressure.
By directing the administration to protect the couple, the Court reaffirmed that individual freedom cannot be overridden by social or familial disapproval. Justice Nargal’s judgment underlined that “life and liberty sans dignity and choice” render constitutional rights hollow, adding that the State’s duty extended beyond non-interference — it must actively safeguard citizens whose personal autonomy is under threat.
The order stands as a strong reaffirmation that love within the bounds of law cannot be criminalised and that protecting such unions is a constitutional obligation, not an act of benevolence.
