Back
Orders Police Protection for Interfaith Couple Threatened Over Marriage
In a significant order, the has directed police protection for an interfaith couple who alleged that threats and intimidation from religious fundamentalist organizations forced them to postpone their marriage. Justice Saugata Bhattacharyya, presiding over the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, disposed of the petition after securing the Marriage Registrar's willingness to proceed with fresh formalities.
Love Amidst Threats: A Marriage Postponed
The couple, identified as Shorab Hussien and another, had originally scheduled their wedding for
. However, they were compelled to postpone it due to what the petition described as
"constant threat and intimidation by members of religious fundamentalist organizations."
The notice period for solemnizing the marriage subsequently expired on
. Facing an impasse, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking directions to the police to facilitate fresh steps for the marriage, expressing concern that even the jurisdictional Marriage Registrar had been intimidated and was reluctant to act.
Registrar's Assurance Clears Path
In an order dated
, the Court had directed the Inspector-in-Charge of
to meet the Marriage Registrar and ascertain his position. Upon compliance, the police officer reported that the Registrar expressed no difficulty in taking
to solemnize the marriage. The Court recorded,
"Inspector-in-Charge,
being respondent no.4 met respondent no.5 and it was apprised to respondent no.4 that Marriage Registrar does not have difficulty in taking
for solemnizing marriage of petitioners."
Police Protection Ordered
With the Registrar's willingness confirmed, the Court granted the petitioners liberty to take necessary steps in accordance with law. Justice Bhattacharyya further directed that if the couple decides to proceed with the marriage, they must intimate the Inspector-in-Charge of
. Upon such intimation,
"necessary police protection shall be provided to petitioners and their family members for completing formalities of marriage."
The State's counsel, , undertook to file the police officer's report on the same day. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with the Court directing the parties to act on the server copy of the order downloaded from the official website.
Key Observations
The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding , particularly the , which is an integral part of the under . By ensuring that an interfaith couple can solemnize their marriage without fear, the has reinforced the principle that love and personal choices must prevail over intolerance and intimidation.
