SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Raj) 278

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anuroop Singhi, J.
Keerti Singhal D/o Pradeep Kumar Gupta - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 731 of 2026
Decided On : 13-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Suresh Kumar with Mr. Vijay Laxmi Jangid and Ms. Jag Jyoti Meena
For the Respondent: Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, P.P., with Mr. Shubham Saini

The fundamental right of two consenting adults to marry of their choice is protected under Constitutional guarantees of liberty; such autonomy cannot be curtailed by external societal or familial pressures, necessitating police protection for individuals facing threats following their exercise of this right.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 19 and 21 - Right to life and personal liberty - Marriage - Consenting adults - Fundamental right to marry of choice - Autonomy in matters of marriage and personal relations - Societal or familial considerations cannot curtail expression of individual choice - Protection of life and liberty to be ensured by state authorities - Law enforcement agencies directed to assess threat perceptions and take preventive measures to ensure safety of individuals. (Paras 10, 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, who are major individuals, entered into a matrimonial alliance and subsequently registered their marriage. Apprehending threats to their lives and liberty from family members and others who opposed their union, the petitioners filed a petition seeking official protection against harassment and potential physical harm.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the right to marry a person of one's choice is a constitutional right protected under the principle of individual autonomy. The state, through its police apparatus, is obligated to provide necessary protection when such personal liberty is threatened, regardless of societal disapproval.

Issues: The main issue was whether two consenting adults who have entered into a matrimonial relationship are entitled to judicial intervention to secure protection against threats to their life and personal liberty stemming from their choice of marriage.

Ratio Decidendi: Fundamental rights concerning personal liberty and the autonomy to choose one's life partner cannot be interfered with based on perceived notions of morality or social acceptability; consequently, law enforcement must act to ensure the safety and security of such individuals when their life and limb are at risk.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions to the concerned police authorities to consider the petitioners' grievance, assess the threat perception, and initiate necessary preventive measures.

Table of Content
1. verification of petitioner maturity and identity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioners seek protection based on right to marriage. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. fundamental right to marry for consenting adults. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. direction for police protection grant. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)

ORDER :

ANUROOP SINGHI, J.

1. The defects as pointed out by the Registry are over-ruled.

2. Both the petitioners who are present in-person before this Court are major and in support of their date of birth, copies of Class X marksheet and/or Aadhaar card have been filed as Annexure Nos.1 and 2.

3. Petitioners have also been duly identified by their counsel.

4. By virtue of the present criminal writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought protection of their life and personal liberty from private respondent Nos.5 to 7, as they are apprehending danger to their life and liberty from the said private respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have solemnized their marriage on 27.04.2026 and the same has been duly registered in the Office of Marriage Registration Officer Ajmer, Ajmer, Rajasthan (Annexure-3). Learned counsel further submits that the private respondents and others are not happy with their marriage and the petitioners are receiving continuous threats.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are major and are mature enough to take independent decision of their life.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that once the petitioners have willingly and with utmost responsibility have chosen to solemnize their marriage, the private respondents have no right to harass, much less threaten the petitioners and take law in their hands and given the fact that the life and liberty of the petitioners is in danger, police protection deserves to be granted to the petitioners and hence, protection is being sought.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that appropriate directions be issued.

9. As the order intended to be passed herein is non-prejudicial to the private respondents, no notices are required to be issued to them.

10. It is a well settled legal position as expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lata Singh Vs. State of UP reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475, Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India reported in (2018) 7 SCC 1992 and Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan KM & Ors. reported in (2018) 16 SCC 368, that the right of two consenting adults to marry a person of their choice is a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It has been consistently held that the autonomy of individuals in matters of marriage and personal relations cannot be curtailed by societal or familial considerations, and once two major individuals have taken a conscious decision to enter into a matrimonial alliance, the same cannot be interfered with on the basis of perceived notions of morality or social acceptability. Thus, the life and personal liberty of such individuals is required to be protected, except in accordance with the procedure established by law, as mandated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

11. In view of the above legal position and factual averments, after perusing record and considering the submissions made, as the petitioners apprehend threat to their life and liberty, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have every right to seek protection of their life, limb and liberty.

12. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present criminal writ petition with the directions to the petitioners to file an appropriate application seeking protection before respondent No.4 – the Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, who is directed to duly consider grievance of the petitioners and after analyzing the threat perceptions, will take all possible preventive measures and other steps as required to ensure safety and securit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top