Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal directed the official respondents to provide adequate police protection to two adult individuals who had entered into marriage of their own volition. The Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions to act in accordance with the Supreme Court’s rulings in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India & Ors., subject to verification of the petitioners’ majority and legality of marriage. The Court also clarified that the police may proceed with investigation if any FIR exists against either petitioner.

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking protection from harassment and physical harm allegedly anticipated from their families. According to their submission, both individuals had attained majority and had solemnized their marriage on 26.03.2025 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. The marriage, however, had been contracted without the consent of their respective families.

Also Read: “We Are Putting States to Notice”: Supreme Court Warns of Contempt Proceedings for Non-Compliance with Healthcare Reimbursement for Retired Judges

Apprehending violence and interference from their relatives, the petitioners filed the writ petition seeking a direction from the Court for police protection. The petition was supported by documentation confirming the marriage and affidavits asserting the ages and mutual consent of the petitioners.

The primary ground raised by the petitioners was the constitutional right to life and liberty as guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. They argued that, as consenting adults, their decision to marry constituted an exercise of individual liberty and personal autonomy, and any threat to the realization of that choice amounted to a violation of their constitutional rights.

The petitioners also cited previous judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognizing the right of adult individuals to choose their partners independently of familial or societal approval. The petitioners sought that the state authorities be directed to ensure their safety from any coercive or retaliatory actions that could be perpetrated by their families or communities due to the inter-personal nature of their union.

The respondents, represented by the Senior Additional Advocate General, did not raise any objection to the relief sought, but maintained that any order for protection must be contingent upon verification of the petitioners' claims, including their age and the legality of the marriage under the applicable personal laws.

The Court recorded that a prima facie examination of the records annexed with the writ petition revealed that the petitioners were adults and had contracted marriage on 26.03.2025 in accordance with Hindu customs. In this context, the Court stated in categorical terms: “When two adults, consensually, choose each other as life partners, it is manifestation of their choice that is recognized under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.”

The Court further recorded, “Such right has sanction of constitutional law and once that is recognized, said right needs to be protected and it cannot succumb to conception of class, honour or group thinking.”

The Court then addressed the larger constitutional framework within which the right to choose a life partner is situated: “The concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, protection and values it stands for.”

Referring to the constitutional role of the judiciary, the Court observed, “It is the obligation of the Constitutional Courts as the sentinel on qui vive to zealously guard the right to liberty of an individual as dignified existence of an individual has an inseparable association with liberty.”

Elaborating on the importance of personal choice as an aspect of constitutional dignity, the Court stated: “The choice of an individual is an extricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of, where there is erosion of choice and no one shall be permitted to interfere in the fructification of the said choice.”

The Court also referred to the potential consequences of violating such a right: “If right to express one’s own choice is obstructed, it would be extremely difficult to think of dignity in its sanctified completeness.”

With respect to the specific prayer for police protection, the Court stated: “When two adults marry out of their volition, they choose their path; they consummate their relationship; they feel that it is their goal and they have the right to do so. And it can unequivocally be stated that they have the right and any infringement of the said right is a constitutional violation.”

The Court relied on binding precedents set forth by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India & Ors., which stress the need for state protection to inter-faith or intra-caste couples facing threats for marrying without societal approval.

Also Read: "‘Scurrilous Attack on Judiciary Cannot Go Unpunished’: Bombay High Court Convicts Director for Criminal Contempt and Sentences Her to One Week’s Imprisonment"

Taking into account the relief sought, the Court concluded the matter by directing the official respondents to ensure that adequate protection is provided to the petitioners. This protection must be granted in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 475 and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2018 SC 1601. The Court made it clear that such protection is to be extended only after the authorities have verified that both petitioners are adults and that their marriage has been solemnized in full compliance with the prevailing legal requirements. Additionally, if any First Information Report has been registered against either of the petitioners, the police are at liberty to proceed with the investigation in accordance with the established rules.

The Court also clarified that the disposal of the writ petition should not be construed as a formal validation of the petitioners’ marital status or their legal capacity to marry. These aspects remain subject to confirmation under the applicable statutory provisions. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, along with the related miscellaneous application.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Senior Additional Advocate General

Case Title: Anamika Devi and Anr. v. UT of J&K and Ors.

Case Number: WP(C) No. 913/2025 and CM No. 2195/2025

Bench: Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal

[Read/Download order]