Court Affirms Constitutional Right to Choose Life Partner: Protection for Intercaste Couples in India

New Delhi:

The freedom to select one's life partner represents a fundamental aspect of personal liberty and privacy guaranteed by the Constitution, and neither family nor community has the right to interfere with the choice of two consenting adults who decide to marry.

Referencing a Supreme Court judgment, the high court noted that the apex court has acknowledged how caste continues to exercise significant social influence in India, and that marriages between different castes serve an important constitutional and societal function by fostering integration and diminishing caste divisions.

"Such unions, the Supreme Court has observed, are in the national interest and must receive firm protection from any familial or communal interference," stated Justice Sanjeev Narula in an order issued on November 4.

The court further emphasized that the freedom to choose a life partner constitutes an intrinsic element of personal liberty and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

"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 high court declared.

These observations emerged during the court's decision to grant police protection to an intercaste couple who had maintained a relationship for 11 years and now wished to marry.

The couple faced opposition from family members, including the mother, sister, brother-in-law, and other relatives who were issuing threats, compelling them to seek court intervention for protection.

The couple requested directions for Delhi Police to ensure their safety and prevent interference with their marriage decision.

Legal counsel for the police informed that a designated constable's contact information had already been provided to the couple following an earlier complaint.

The court instructed the station house officer of the jurisdictional police station to immediately conduct a brief threat assessment of the couple.

Based on this assessment, the court ordered that the officer must implement preventive measures permitted by law, including appropriate diary entries, beat patrolling near the couple's current residence, and other necessary steps to discourage 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 court directed.

The court clarified that these directives are preventive and protective in nature, and no opinion has been expressed regarding the truthfulness of the allegations against the respondent family members.