The Delhi high court, reaffirming the constitutional right to personal liberty and privacy, has sent out a strong message — no family, community, or social group has the authority to obstruct two consenting adults from choosing each other as life partners.
“The freedom to choose a life partner is an intrinsic part of personal liberty and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the court said, underscoring that love and choice cannot be dictated by bloodlines or caste.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, while referring to a Supreme Court ruling, reminded that caste still wields a deep social grip in India.
“Inter-caste marriages perform a valuable constitutional and societal function by promoting integration and reducing caste divisions,” the bench said.
“Such unions, the Supreme Court has observed, are in the national interest and must receive firm protection from any familial or communal interference,” Justice Narula added in the November 4 order.
The court’s observations came while hearing a plea by an inter-caste couple who had been in a relationship for 11 years and now wished to marry.
Their families, including the mother, sister, and brother-in-law, opposed the relationship and allegedly issued threats, forcing the couple to seek protection.
Rejecting any form of intimidation, the bench stated, “Where two consenting adults decide to marry or cohabit, neither family nor community can lawfully obstruct that choice or subject them to pressure, social sanctions, or threats.”
The Delhi police informed the court that a designated constable’s contact had already been shared with the couple following a previous complaint.
The court, however, went a step further, directing the station house officer to “conduct a brief threat-assessment of the couple forthwith” and to act on its findings immediately.
Based on the assessment, the court said, the police must take all preventive steps allowed by law, “including but not limited to appropriate diary entries, beat patrolling near the couple's current residence and other measures 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 read.
Emphasising that its directions were “preventive and protective in character,” the court made it clear that “no opinion is expressed on the veracity of the allegations levelled against the respondent family members.”