Introduction:

In a noteworthy judgment, the Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed the supremacy of fundamental rights over social norms, particularly in cases concerning the protection of life and liberty. The case, Rekha Meghwanshi & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., revolved around a young couple in a live-in relationship who sought court protection due to threats from the girl’s family. Despite not being of marriageable age, the bench, led by Justice Arun Monga, ruled that the fundamental rights to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution must be upheld, irrespective of marital status or the validity of a marriage. This judgment underscores the State’s Constitutional duty to protect its citizens, regardless of age or social norms.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Petitioners’ Contentions:

Rekha Meghwanshi and her partner approached the Rajasthan High Court seeking protection from the girl’s family, who opposed their relationship and allegedly threatened their lives. The girl, 20, and the boy, 19, had been living together consensually, intending to marry once they reached the legal marriageable age. However, the couple faced severe threats, forcing them to seek police protection, which was allegedly denied.

The couple argued that their fundamental rights under Article 21, guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty, were being violated. They emphasized that their relationship, though not formalized by marriage due to their ages, should not strip them of these rights. They relied on legal precedents that affirm the right to life and liberty cannot be denied based on age or marital status.

State’s Arguments:

The State of Rajasthan argued that the couple’s relationship, not legally recognized due to their ages, was invalid and providing protection could set a dangerous precedent. The State contended that offering protection would indirectly legitimize an illegal relationship, contrary to public policy and societal norms. They further argued that the couple should have waited until reaching the legal marriageable age before seeking court protection, maintaining that the need to balance life and liberty with public order and legal frameworks was paramount.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Arun Monga upheld the petitioners’ right to life and liberty, regardless of their age or the legality of their relationship. The Court noted that the central issue was not the legality of the relationship but the couple’s right to protection from threats. The Court emphasized that Article 21’s protection of life and personal liberty is sacrosanct and cannot be compromised by social norms or legal technicalities.

Referring to the Seema Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab and Others case, the Court reiterated that marriage is not a prerequisite for seeking protection, and the State is constitutionally bound to protect individuals’ rights, including their choice of partner. The Court dismissed the State’s concerns about setting a dangerous precedent, asserting that fundamental rights cannot be compromised based on hypothetical fears.

Consequently, the Court directed the Superintendent of Police to assess the threat to the petitioners and provide necessary protection. The Court emphasized that the police must act promptly to ensure the petitioners’ safety, irrespective of any social or legal concerns about their relationship.

Conclusion:

The Rajasthan High Court’s judgment reaffirms the supremacy of fundamental rights over societal norms and legal technicalities. The ruling underscores the State’s absolute constitutional obligation to protect the life and liberty of its citizens, regardless of the legal status of their relationships.