Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula directed the State to provide continued protection to a couple until the solemnization of their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and to ensure their accommodation in a safe house for as long as necessary to safeguard their life and liberty. The Court further ordered that any acts of coercion, intimidation, or threats—whether direct or indirect—by any person, including family members, must be promptly recorded and addressed by the police. Additionally, the Court instructed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) to record the statement of one of the parties regarding allegations of unlawful separation by the police and to submit a detailed report. A status report on the functioning of a dedicated helpline mandated by the Supreme Court in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India was also sought. The matter was listed for further consideration on 12th September 2025.

The matter involved a young couple, one party a Hindu woman and the other a Muslim man, who had chosen to enter into an inter-faith marriage after a relationship spanning over seven years. According to the record, they described their relationship as founded on mutual respect, affection, and trust. Having decided to formalise their bond legally, they encountered strong opposition from the woman’s family, particularly her father, who objected on personal and religious grounds. The woman asserted that this opposition had escalated beyond disapproval, manifesting in explicit threats to their safety and attempts to prevent the marriage. The couple sought the Court's intervention for protection of their life and liberty, citing a reasonable apprehension of physical harm and social coercion.

Also Read: Supreme Court Warns: ‘No Five-Star Treatment in Jail —or Superintendent Will Be Suspended’"

In compliance with a previous order dated 25th July 2025, the State filed a status report confirming that the couple was residing in a safe house. The report recorded that the woman, aged 25, was a major and legally entitled to make her own decisions regarding marriage under Indian law. She held degrees in M.Sc. and B.Ed., as well as an O-Level Computer Course certification, and was fully conscious of her rights and the implications of her choices. Her intention to marry the petitioner was verified as firm, consistent, and of her own volition.

Counsel for the woman’s father contested the claims in the petition, arguing that the father’s concern stemmed from genuine apprehensions about his daughter's well-being. He maintained that the father was troubled by the significant decision being made without his consultation. It was submitted that the father had no intention of causing harm, only wishing that his daughter return home to reflect before deciding. Counsel informed the Court that the father was hospitalized at the time.

The Court noted that the father’s objection arose from his personal values and perception of his daughter’s welfare. Observing that there had been no recent interaction between them, and acknowledging the father’s concern, the Court suggested a telephonic conversation between the woman and her father to reassure him and reduce tensions. She agreed, but later informed the Court that the conversation left her feeling emotionally pressured, with certain remarks perceived as veiled threats.

The Court interacted with the woman to ascertain that her decision was informed, voluntary, and free from coercion. She unequivocally affirmed her intention to marry the petitioner, stating that they had known each other closely for seven years and had already initiated the process of marriage registration under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The application for registration was placed on record.

The Court recognised Article 21 of the Constitution as guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty, including the freedom to marry a person of one's choice, and noted that the State has a positive obligation to safeguard such rights even against familial opposition.

The Court stated that "the plea of the couple is not for the Court’s endorsement of their personal choice, but for the State’s assurance that such choice may be exercised without fear." It further observed that the interaction with the woman was conducted "not with the object of judging her choice of partner, but to satisfy itself that her decision is informed, voluntary, and free from coercion." The Court recorded that she conveyed her decision "with clarity, composure, and consistency, leaving no room for doubt as to its firmness."

Referring to constitutional guarantees, the Court stated: "Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees to every individual the right to life and personal liberty, a guarantee that has been judicially recognised to encompass the freedom to marry a person of one’s choice." It added: "Parental preference, however well-intentioned, cannot legally override that autonomy."

On the State’s role, the Court recorded: "The State’s protective machinery must be activated promptly and effectively, ensuring that the choice of an adult citizen, made freely and within the bounds of law, is preserved in substance and not merely in form."

The Court also addressed allegations in the woman’s affidavit that she was separated from her partner against her will when she first sought police protection, and taken to a women’s shelter home where she was denied access to her mobile phone. The DCP’s report denied any coercion or procedural irregularity, but the Court noted that this version conflicted with her account and required further examination.

Also Read: Blindness Cannot Eclipse Determination | Rajasthan HC Tells AIIMS To Devise Special Methods For MBBS Student Who Lost 100% Vision — “No Person Forfeits Their Claim To Education On Account Of Disability”

The Court directed that the State shall ensure continued protection to the couple until their marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and that they shall remain accommodated in a safe house for as long as necessary to safeguard their life and liberty. The concerned DCP must periodically and meaningfully assess the threat perception, applying principles from the Supreme Court decision in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India.

It ordered that in the event of any coercive, intimidating, or threatening act, whether direct or indirect, including by family members, the incident must be promptly recorded in the Daily Diary and preventive and penal measures taken immediately in accordance with law. The police must keep the petitioners informed of any actions taken.

The Court instructed the DCP to record the woman’s statement specifically on the allegation of unlawful separation and to submit a report clearly indicating whether any such separation took place and, if so, identifying the responsible officers. A further report on the functioning, accessibility, and responsiveness of the Supreme Court-mandated helpline, including any protective action taken in the past six months, was also ordered. The matter was listed for 12th September 2025 for further consideration of these reports.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Advocate; Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC with Mr. Karan Grover, Mr. Priyansh Raj Singh Senger, and Mr. Aniket Kumar Singh, Advocates for the State; Insp. Jeet Singh, SHO/ Sarita Vihar; Mr. Shivank Pratap Singh, Advocate; Ms. Priya Singh, Advocate; Mr. Samyak Jain, Advocate for Applicant.

Case Title: Mohammad Shahnoor Mansoori v. State of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police & Anr.

Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 2305/2025

Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula