Introduction:

In a landmark reaffirmation of personal liberty and constitutional morality, the Delhi High Court in Laxmi Devi & Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Others emphatically held that consenting adults do not require societal or parental approval to choose their life partners and that any interference in such personal decisions amounts to an unconstitutional intrusion into their fundamental rights. The judgment was delivered by Justice Saurabh Banerjee while allowing a writ petition filed by a married couple seeking police protection against threats allegedly issued by the father of the woman, who opposed their marriage. The case arose from a familiar but deeply troubling social reality, where adults exercising their lawful choice to marry are subjected to coercion, threats, and intimidation by family members in the name of honour, tradition, or societal expectations. The petitioners, both adults, had solemnised their marriage in July 2025 in accordance with Hindu rites at an Arya Samaj temple and subsequently registered the marriage before the competent authority. Despite the legality and voluntariness of their union, the woman’s father allegedly issued threats to their life and liberty, compelling the couple to approach the High Court for protection. In addressing the plea, the Court not only granted police protection but also laid down important observations on the constitutional right to marry, the autonomy of adults, and the impermissibility of societal or parental interference in such matters, firmly anchoring its reasoning in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and international human rights principles.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioners:

The petitioners contended that they were both major, consenting adults who had lawfully entered into marriage of their own free will, without any force, fraud, or coercion. It was submitted that their marriage had been solemnised as per Hindu rites at a recognised Arya Samaj temple in July 2025 and was thereafter duly registered before the competent statutory authority, thereby leaving no scope for any doubt regarding the legality or validity of the marriage. The petitioners argued that despite their lawful union, the father of the woman was vehemently opposed to the marriage and had been issuing threats to their life and liberty, creating a constant atmosphere of fear and insecurity. It was urged that such conduct amounted to a gross violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Emphasising Article 21, the petitioners submitted that the right to life and personal liberty includes within its fold the right to make personal choices, particularly in matters of marriage, companionship, and family life. Any attempt by parents, relatives, or society to interfere with such choices, they argued, is unconstitutional and illegal. The petitioners further submitted that they were not seeking any declaration regarding the validity of their marriage, as the same was already lawful and registered, but were only seeking protection from illegal threats and intimidation. During the course of hearing, counsel for the petitioners also gave up the challenge to any coercive action in relation to an FIR lodged against the woman, thereby narrowing the scope of the petition to the issue of protection alone. It was argued that the State has a positive obligation to protect the life and liberty of citizens, particularly when they are threatened for exercising their fundamental rights. The petitioners relied on settled judicial precedents recognising the autonomy of adults in choosing their partners and urged the Court to grant immediate police protection to safeguard them from any harm.

Arguments on Behalf of the State and Other Respondents:

The State, represented through its counsel, did not seriously dispute the legal position that consenting adults have the right to marry a person of their choice. The State’s submissions were largely confined to procedural aspects and the existence of an FIR involving the woman petitioner. However, in view of the petitioners giving up their challenge to any coercive action arising out of the said FIR, the focus of the hearing remained on the issue of protection. There was no substantial justification placed on record by the respondents to counter the petitioners’ apprehension of threat or to demonstrate that adequate protection was already being provided. The father of the woman, though arrayed as a respondent, could not assert any legal right to interfere with the marital choices of his adult daughter. The absence of any lawful basis for opposing the marriage or threatening the couple significantly weakened the respondents’ position. The Court thus proceeded to examine the matter primarily from the standpoint of constitutional rights and the duty of the State to protect citizens from unlawful interference.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Saurabh Banerjee, after hearing the parties and examining the material on record, allowed the writ petition and granted police protection to the petitioners, while making far-reaching observations on the right to marry and individual autonomy. The Court unequivocally held that sanctity must be accorded to the decision of adults who choose to enter into marriage of their own free will, and that such decisions deserve the highest degree of constitutional protection. The Court reiterated that the right to marry is an incident of human liberty and a matter of individual choice, a principle that is not only recognised under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but is also an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Elaborating on the scope of Article 21, the Court observed that the provision guarantees the right to life and personal liberty to all persons, including the inherent right of consenting adults to exercise personal choices in matters relating to marriage. The Court made it clear that once two adults choose each other as life partners, no one—not society, not the State machinery, and not even their parents or relatives—can interfere with that decision in any manner whatsoever. In strong and unambiguous terms, the Court held that no social approval is required for such personal decisions, and that any attempt to threaten or intimidate a couple for marrying by choice amounts to a violation of their fundamental rights. Specifically addressing the conduct of the woman’s father, the Court observed that no person, much less a parent, can be permitted to threaten the life and liberty of consenting adults on the ground of opposition to their marriage. Such conduct, the Court implied, cannot be justified under any notion of family honour, tradition, or social norms. Recognising the real and present threat perceived by the petitioners, the Court directed that they be extended necessary police protection. It further permitted the couple to directly contact the Station House Officer or beat officers of the concerned police station whenever the need arises, thereby ensuring immediate access to protection. The Court also clarified that in the event the couple shifts their residence, they must inform the local police authorities so that continued protection can be ensured. By these directions, the Court reinforced the principle that the State has a constitutional obligation to protect individuals who face threats for exercising their lawful choices, especially in matters as intimate and personal as marriage.