In a significant affirmation of individual autonomy and constitutional liberties, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh ruled that the decision of two consenting adults to marry is a fundamental right protected under the Constitution of India. The court emphasized that such a choice is not subject to the approval of family, community, or societal norms, thereby reinforcing the primacy of personal liberty and dignity.
The case involved a young couple who had married under Hindu rites and customs. Both individuals were adults and legally wedded, yet they faced opposition from their families, who disapproved of their union. Fearing for their safety and seeking protection from potential harm and harassment, the couple filed a writ petition requesting state protection to safeguard their life and liberty.
Presiding over the case, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal underscored the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty, stating that when two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is a manifestation of their choice recognized under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. He asserted that such a right has the sanction of constitutional law and must be protected, resisting any attempts to subject it to the conceptions of class, honor, or group thinking. The court made it unequivocally clear that the consent of family, community, or clan is not necessary for such a marriage.
Justice Nargal further elaborated that when two adults marry out of their volition, they choose their path and consummate their relationship, which is their right. Any infringement of this right constitutes a constitutional violation. He emphasized the obligation of Constitutional Courts to zealously guard the right to liberty of an individual, as a dignified existence is inseparably associated with liberty. The court highlighted that life and liberty sans dignity are meaningless, and any attempt to obstruct such a choice by family, community, or society is a direct violation of fundamental rights.
The court's decision aligns with previous judgments by the Supreme Court of India, which have consistently upheld the right of individuals to choose their life partners without interference from familial or societal pressures. In particular, the Supreme Court has observed that the consent of the family or the community or the clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock. Such a right or choice to marry is not expected to succumb to the concept of "class honour" or "group thinking."
This judgment by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court serves as a reaffirmation of the constitutional principles of individual autonomy and personal liberty. It sends a clear message that the state has a duty to protect individuals who exercise their fundamental rights, especially in the face of societal or familial opposition. The ruling underscores the importance of upholding the dignity and freedom of individuals to make personal choices, free from coercion or undue influence.
In conclusion, the High Court's decision reinforces the constitutional mandate that the right to marry a person of one's choice is a fundamental right, and any attempt to infringe upon this right by invoking notions of class, honor, or community approval is unconstitutional. The judgment stands as a testament to the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual liberties and ensuring that personal choices are respected and protected under the law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.