Introduction:

The present writ petition, titled Simran Kaur and Another v. State of Uttarakhand and Others, was brought before the Uttarakhand High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, a married couple, approached the Court seeking protection of their life and personal liberty against perceived threats from private respondents, who were close family members of petitioner no. 1.

The petitioners asserted that they were in a consensual relationship and had solemnized their marriage on 12 February 2026 at a Shiv temple in Udham Singh Nagar, following Hindu rituals and customs. To substantiate their claim, they placed photographs of the marriage ceremony on record. They further submitted Aadhaar cards to demonstrate that both individuals were majors at the time of marriage.

Despite entering into the marriage of their own free will, the couple expressed a serious apprehension of threat to their safety and well-being from the private respondents, specifically the father and cousin brother of petitioner no. 1. According to the petitioners, this threat stemmed from familial disapproval of their union.

In light of these circumstances, the petitioners invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, seeking directions to the State authorities, particularly the police, to ensure their protection so they could lead a peaceful married life without interference or coercion.

The matter was placed before Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, who considered the urgency and sensitivity of the issue and issued interim directions addressing the protection of the petitioners.

Arguments by the Petitioners:

The petitioners primarily argued that their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India—which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty—were under imminent threat due to the actions and intentions of the private respondents.

They contended that:

Valid Marriage by Consent:

The petitioners emphasized that they had entered into a lawful marriage based on mutual consent. Both individuals were majors, as evidenced by their Aadhaar cards, and had solemnized the marriage in accordance with Hindu customs and rituals. The absence of formal registration of the marriage, they argued, did not invalidate the union or diminish their rights as a married couple.

Autonomy and Choice:

It was strongly asserted that the right to choose one’s life partner is an intrinsic part of personal liberty and dignity. The petitioners maintained that their decision to marry was entirely voluntary and free from any coercion, thereby deserving full legal protection.

Threat Perception:

The petitioners highlighted that they were facing a credible threat from the private respondents, who were opposed to the marriage. They expressed fear of physical harm, harassment, and possible coercive actions aimed at separating them.

Failure of Local Authorities:

Though not explicitly stated as inaction, the petition implied that without judicial intervention, there was a likelihood that the State machinery might fail to adequately safeguard their rights.

Need for Immediate Protection:

Given the urgency of the situation, the petitioners sought immediate police protection to ensure their safety and to prevent any unlawful interference in their marital life.

Undertaking to Register Marriage:

The petitioners acknowledged that their marriage had not yet been formally registered but undertook before the Court that they would complete the registration process within a short span of time.

Through these submissions, the petitioners prayed for issuance of appropriate directions to the police authorities to provide protection and prevent any harm or coercion by the private respondents.

Arguments by the Respondents (State and Private Respondents)

Although the matter was at an interim stage and a detailed counter affidavit was yet to be filed, certain positions can be inferred based on procedural posture and typical responses in such cases:

State Authorities’ Position:

The State, represented through its counsel, did not raise any immediate objection to the maintainability of the petition. However, it sought time to file a counter affidavit to place its version on record.

Generally, in such cases, the State may argue that:

• Law and order is being maintained.
• Any specific complaint should be addressed through local police mechanisms.
• Protection can be provided subject to verification of threat perception.

Private Respondents’ Likely Stand:

Although they had not yet formally presented their arguments, it is reasonable to infer that the private respondents opposed the marriage, possibly on social, familial, or cultural grounds.

In similar cases, private respondents often argue:

• Disapproval of the marriage due to societal norms or family honor.
• Allegations regarding the validity or circumstances of the marriage.
• Emotional or familial concerns rather than legal objections.

Concerns Regarding Registration:

The lack of formal registration of the marriage could have been a point of contention, though not sufficient to negate the couple’s rights as consenting adults.

At this stage, the Court primarily focused on the urgency of the threat perception rather than delving deeply into contested factual disputes.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, after hearing the submissions and examining the material placed on record, proceeded to address the core issue—whether the petitioners, as consenting adults who had married of their own free will, were entitled to protection from perceived threats.

Recognition of Adult Autonomy

The Court took note of the Aadhaar cards submitted by the petitioners, which clearly established that both individuals were majors. This finding was crucial, as it affirmed their legal capacity to make independent decisions, including the choice of a life partner.

The Court observed that the petitioners had married each other out of their own volition, without any compulsion or coercion. This acknowledgment reinforced the constitutional principle that adults have the autonomy to make personal choices without undue interference.

Marriage Without Registration

While the Court acknowledged that the marriage had not yet been formally registered, it did not treat this as a ground to deny protection. Instead, the Court adopted a pragmatic approach, recognizing the validity of the marriage ceremony and the intention of the parties.

At the same time, the Court directed the petitioners to complete the registration process within a short span of time and produce the marriage certificate. This direction ensured legal formalization while not compromising immediate protection.

Threat Perception and State Obligation

The most significant aspect of the judgment was the Court’s clear articulation of the State’s duty in cases involving threat perception.

The Court categorically observed:

“If there is threat perception from the side of the private respondents, the State authorities are under a legal obligation to ensure safety and protection of the petitioners.”

This observation reaffirmed the constitutional mandate under Article 21, which obligates the State to protect the life and liberty of individuals.

Directions to Police Authorities

In light of the apprehended threat, the Court issued specific directions:

Assessment of Threat:

The police authorities were directed to assess the threat perception faced by the petitioners.

Provision of Protection:

Based on the assessment, necessary arrangements were to be made to ensure the safety and protection of the petitioners from any harm or coercive action by the private respondents.

Preventive Measures:

The Court emphasized that protection should not be merely reactive but proactive, ensuring that any potential threat is neutralized.

Counselling of Private Respondents

The Court also directed that the private respondents be called to the police station and counselled. They were specifically instructed not to take the law into their own hands.

This direction reflects a balanced approach—while protecting the petitioners, the Court also sought to prevent escalation of conflict by addressing the concerns of the opposing parties through counselling.

Undertaking by Petitioners

The Court recorded the undertaking given by the petitioners to register their marriage within a short period. This undertaking was made a condition accompanying the grant of interim protection.

Issuance of Notice

Finally, the Court issued notice in the matter and granted time to the State to file a counter affidavit. This indicates that the matter remains pending for further adjudication, with interim protection granted to safeguard the petitioners in the meantime.