The choice of life partner by consenting adults is protected; threats or interference are unlawful.

Petitioner No. 1, aged 24, and Petitioner No. 2, aged 31, were majors who had known each other since childhood and decided to marry voluntarily in 2023.

Their respective families opposed the proposed inter-religious marriage.

Petitioner No. 1 alleged that she was assaulted and threatened after disclosing her decision and thereafter left her parental home voluntarily.

She submitted a declaration dated 3 July 2026 to the Station House Officer, Police Station Sukma, stating that she had left of her own free will and requesting that no false missing or kidnapping case be registered against Petitioner No. 2.

The petitioners submitted representations to the Superintendents of Police, Sukma and Bastar, seeking protection from threats and unlawful interference, but claimed that no effective protection was provided.

They consequently invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking police protection and preventive action.

Whether two major consenting adults who intend to marry have a constitutional right to protection of their life, personal liberty and autonomy from threats, violence or unlawful interference by family members.

Whether the concerned police authorities should be directed to provide preventive protection and take appropriate legal action upon receiving complaints of threats, intimidation, assault, unlawful confinement or other interference.

The Court applied Article 21 of the Constitution, holding that the right of two consenting adults to choose their life partner is an integral aspect of personal liberty and individual autonomy.

It relied on Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2006) 5 SCC 475, which recognises that inter-caste and inter-religious marriages are constitutionally protected and directs the police and administration to prevent threats, harassment and violence against such couples and to initiate criminal proceedings against persons responsible for such conduct.

Familial or social disapproval of a lawful relationship does not justify assault, threats, confinement or interference with the liberty of major individuals.

The Court noted that both petitioners were majors and had expressed their intention to marry voluntarily, while Petitioner No. 1’s written declaration supported her assertion that she had left her parental home without coercion.

Although the State characterised the allegations as general and lacking a specific cognizable offence, the Court held that the apprehension of harm, coupled with the allegations of assault, threats and opposition based on religious difference, warranted preventive constitutional protection.

Applying Lata Singh, the Court concluded that the petitioners’ families could not lawfully threaten, assault, confine or otherwise interfere with the petitioners merely because of their proposed inter-religious marriage.

The police were therefore required to respond promptly to any specific complaint and take preventive or legal action in accordance with law.

The Superintendents of Police, Sukma and Bastar, and other concerned police authorities were directed to ensure that no harm was caused to the petitioners and to promptly examine and act upon any complaint concerning threats, intimidation, assault, unlawful confinement or other interference.

The private respondents and persons acting on their behalf were restrained from taking the law into their own hands or disturbing the petitioners’ peaceful life and liberty because of their decision to marry.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.