Intrinsic to personal liberty: Delhi High Court backs freedom to choose life partner

The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that the freedom to choose a life partner is an intrinsic part of personal liberty and privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court observed that neither family nor community can obstruct the decision of two consenting adults to marry or cohabit, stressing that such freedom lies at the core of individual autonomy protected by the Indian Constitution.

Justice Sanjeev Narula, while referring to a Supreme Court judgment, highlighted that caste continues to exert a strong social influence in Indian society.

The court underlined that inter-caste marriages, apart from being a matter of personal choice, also perform a "valuable constitutional and societal function" by promoting social integration and weakening caste-based divisions.

"Such unions, the Supreme Court has observed, are in the national interest and must receive firm protection from any familial or communal interference," the judge said in the order passed on November 4.

The observation reinforces the constitutional promise of equality, liberty, and dignity, particularly in the context of personal relationships.

The remarks came during the hearing of a plea filed by an inter-caste couple who had been in a relationship for 11 years and now intended to marry.

The couple approached the court seeking protection from the Delhi Police, claiming they were facing opposition and threats from their family members — including the mother, sister, brother-in-law, and other relatives — who were against their relationship.

The petitioners requested directions to ensure their safety and to prevent any interference with their decision to marry.

Responding to the plea, the counsel for Delhi Police informed the court that a designated constable’s contact details had already been shared with the couple in response to an earlier complaint, and that steps were being taken to ensure their protection.

The court directed the police to conduct a “brief threat assessment” of the couple without delay.

Based on its findings, the SHO has been asked to take all preventive measures permissible under law — including maintaining appropriate diary entries, patrolling near the couple’s current residence, and any other steps necessary to deter harassment or intimidation.

“If the petitioners report any threat or attempt at interference by respondent nos. 2 to 6 or any other person, the police shall register a DD entry, extend immediate protection, and proceed in accordance with law,” the order stated.

The court clarified that its directions were preventive and protective in nature and that no opinion was being expressed on the truthfulness of the allegations made against the respondents.

- Ends

With PTI inputs

Tune In