Back
Jammu and Kashmir High Court Directs Police Protection for Adult Woman's Free Choice of Partner
In a significant judgment reinforcing the right to under , the directed the police to provide protection to a woman and the man of her choice, holding that her voluntary decision to lead her life with him cannot be overridden by parental disagreement or societal expectations. A comprising Chief Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice M.A. Chowdhary allowed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by Nusrat Jan and her partner, setting aside earlier orders that had imposed restrictions on her liberty.
A Woman's Right to Choose
The matter arose from a writ petition filed by Nusrat Jan and another seeking a direction to the respondents—the and others—not to interfere with their life and matrimonial status, and to provide adequate security as per the 's guidelines in The petitioners contended that Nusrat Jan, born on as per her Class 10th certificate issued by the , had attained majority and was entitled to make her own decisions regarding her residence, movement, and choice of life partner.
However, the had passed a series of orders between July and August 2026 that imposed restrictions on her , including supervision by police and parents. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the .
Arguments from All Sides
Appearing for the appellants, argued that the 's orders were inconsistent with Nusrat Jan's status as a major. He emphasized that her Class 10th certificate clearly demonstrated her age, and that the Court itself had earlier observed she was a major. He made a limited submission for protection, stating that since there was parental disagreement, the appellants required protection to enable Nusrat Jan to exercise her liberty freely.
The father of Nusrat Jan was present in court and expressed anxiety about his daughter's future. He submitted that if she wished to go with the second appellant, proper Mahr ought to be paid to her.
, representing the State, conceded that the certificate established Nusrat Jan's majority. He submitted that her wishes had to be protected and that her liberty and protection had become her right. He suggested that the court itself could ascertain her wishes.
The Court Confronts the Core Issue
The court then called Nusrat Jan and asked her about her wishes directly. She confidently stated that she wanted to go with the second appellant and requested protection so that she could remain at liberty to exercise her . She also informed the court that she had tried to persuade her parents but had not succeeded.
The began its legal analysis by recognizing the constitutional obligations under Article 21. It extensively relied upon the 's judgment in , which had discussed the interplay between , privacy, and the State's duty to protect.
Over
The Bench particularly noted the 's observations in , where it was held that autonomy forms part of dignity and that must prevail over . The court further cited on the encompassing personal intimacies and the ability to control vital aspects of one's life. It also referred to , which held that familial structures cannot be regarded as private spaces devoid of constitutional rights.
The Bench emphasized that it was not within the court's domain to scrutinize the morality of a relationship where its legality was not in question. It stated,
"Any scrutiny or remark upon the so-called morality of an individual's relationship and blanket statements of condemnation especially in matters where it is not called into question would simply bolster an intrusion upon one's right to choice and condone acts of unwarranted moral policing by the society at large."
The court also drew from and to underscore the State's duty to protect , even in cases where the individual may have committed an illegality, as must be followed.
Key Observations
The judgment contained several pivotal observations:
"This Court finds itself firmly tied down to the principle of , which cannot be hampered by societal expectations in a vibrant democracy. The State's respect for the individual independent choices has to be held high."
"The Court has to be guided by the conception of and not by the ."
"The right to claim protection under Article 21 is a constitutional mandate upon the State and can be availed by all persons alike."
Final Order and Its Implications
Turning to the facts, the court noted that Nusrat Jan had remained in her parents' custody since and had spent sufficient time at home, yet remained confident in her choice. There was no pressure on her during her deposition. The court therefore allowed the appeal and the writ petition, directing the police authorities to provide appropriate protection to the appellants and ensure that the of Nusrat Jan prevailed and remained protected.
The decision reaffirms that in matters of personal choice, the constitutional right to under Article 21 cannot be curtailed by parental concerns or societal norms. It serves as a strong reminder that the State's duty to protect extends to all adults regardless of the nature of their relationships, as long as is followed.
