State must provide police protection to adult couples in inter-caste marriages to safeguard life and liberty.

The petitioners, both of whom are legal adults (aged 19 and 23 respectively), entered into a voluntary inter-caste marriage on March 6, 2026.

They provided documentation, including a government-issued marriage certificate and Aadhar cards, to verify their age and marital status.

Following the marriage, the petitioners and the husband’s family faced threats of violence and false criminal implication from the wife's family due to community and caste differences.

Despite submitting representations to the Home Ministry and local police authorities on March 28, 2026, no protective action was taken, prompting the petitioners to seek a writ of mandamus for police protection.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to police protection to safeguard their life and liberty following a valid inter-caste marriage between consenting adults.

2. Whether the interference and threats by family members and the community constitute an infringement of the petitioners' constitutional rights and dignity.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Another (2006) 5 SCC 475, which established that adults are free to marry any person of their choice and that inter-caste marriages are in the national interest.

Shakti Vahini v. Union of India and Others (2018) 7 SCC 192 regarding the prevention of "honour" crimes and the duty of the state to protect couples from harassment or violence initiated by family members who disapprove of their choice of partner.

The court found that because the petitioners are majors and had legally solemnized their marriage of their own free will, no third party—including family members—had the legal authority to interfere or obstruct their choice.

The State’s counsel did not dispute the majority or the voluntary nature of the union.

Applying the Lata Singh precedent, the court reasoned that the caste system should not be a barrier to marriage and that the threats of "honour" killings or false criminal cases are "barbaric" acts that demand stern administrative intervention.

The court emphasized that the police have a duty to prevent harassment of such couples and that failure to act on the petitioners' representations necessitated judicial direction to ensure their safety.

The court directed the Superintendent of Police, Raisen, to examine the matter and take immediate appropriate steps to provide adequate protection to the petitioners to safeguard their life and liberty.

The petition was disposed of with these directions to ensure the petitioners are not harassed by any person or authority for their marital choice.