SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the right of an adult woman to decide where and with whom she wishes to live, directing the authorities to provide adequate police protection to her and her partner at their chosen place of residence.
The Division Bench passed the directions on September 21 while allowing Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 209/2026 arising from WP(C) No. 1805/2026, along with CM(5913/2026). It set aside a series of interim directions issued by a Single Judge between July 29 and August 20 which had imposed restrictions concerning the woman’s movement, residence and association.
The court’s ruling placed individual liberty and personal autonomy within the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution, holding that the voluntary decision of a major adult cannot be overridden merely because of parental concerns or societal expectations.
The case concerned Nusrat Jan and another, who approached the court against the restrictions imposed during the proceedings. They sought protection of their life, liberty and physical safety and challenged directions involving police escort, police supervision, parental supervision and repeated production before the court.
The petitioners also sought protection against coercive action arising solely from their voluntary association and solemnised Nikkah, as well as against alleged harassment, threats or unlawful interference by family members or private respondents.
During the proceedings, the court examined the question of Nusrat Jan’s age. Her Class 10 certificate issued by the Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education recorded her date of birth as April 6, 2008, establishing her as a major at the time relevant to the proceedings.
The court also called her before the Bench in open court to ascertain her wishes directly. She stated that she wanted to accompany the second petitioner and exercise her own choice. She also told the court that she had tried to persuade her parents to respect her decision but had not succeeded.
The Bench noted that she had remained with her parents since July 29 and had therefore spent considerable time at her parental home before making her statement. The court found that she was making the statement without pressure.
Her father was also present before the court. According to the proceedings, he expressed parental concern regarding his daughter’s future and submitted that, if she chose to accompany the second petitioner, appropriate Mahr should be paid to her.
The government’s counsel, Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadri, assisted by Maha Majeed, acknowledged that the school record established Nusrat Jan’s status as a major and that her liberty and safety were protected by law.
In reaching its conclusion, the Division Bench considered a series of Supreme Court judgments concerning individual autonomy, privacy, dignity and the right to choose one’s life partner. These included Lata Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, Shafin Jahan v Asokan K.M., commonly known as the Hadiya case, K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India, Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India and Joseph Shine v Union of India.
The court drew a distinction between constitutional morality and prevailing notions of social morality, emphasising that constitutional rights cannot be curtailed to satisfy majoritarian or societal expectations.
The Bench also considered the limits of the court’s parens patriae jurisdiction, observing that such protective jurisdiction is principally exercised in relation to minors or persons unable to make decisions for themselves. It held that such jurisdiction cannot be extended to override the autonomous choices of an adult.
The judgment further referred to the broader principle that the State remains bound by constitutional safeguards even in circumstances involving allegations of serious wrongdoing. Referring to precedents including D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal and the trial of Ajmal Kasab, the court stressed the importance of due process and protection of fundamental rights.
While disposing of the writ petition and allowing the appeal, the Division Bench directed the police and other authorities to provide appropriate and adequate security to the petitioners at their chosen place of residence.
It further directed the authorities to ensure that the voluntary decision of Nusrat Jan was respected and protected from harassment, coercion or unlawful interference.
The court made it clear, however, that its observations in the case would not prejudice any independent criminal or civil proceedings that may have been initiated by the parties.
The ruling thus addresses both the immediate safety of the couple and the broader constitutional question of whether parental or societal concerns can override the expressed choice of an adult in matters concerning personal liberty and association.
