New Delhi, August 16, 2025 – Reiterating the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and dignity, the Delhi High Court has directed the police to provide protection to a couple who eloped and married against the wishes of the woman’s family. The Court held that the disapproval of family members cannot override the fundamental right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners, as safeguarded under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, while hearing the plea in Prince Tyagi and Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors., underscored that the right of adults to marry and cohabit flows from the principles of privacy, autonomy, and dignity – rights repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court further directed the Delhi Police to ensure adequate protection for the petitioners, who had complained of persistent threats from the woman’s family.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, who had married of their own volition, approached the High Court stating that the woman’s family strongly opposed their union and had issued life threats through calls, messages, and even video communication. The woman’s relatives had also filed a missing person complaint, alleging that she was untraceable.
During the preliminary inquiry, the police established that the woman had voluntarily left her parental home and entered into a legally valid marriage. The couple maintained before the Court that despite the clarity on her voluntary decision, the family’s continued hostility posed a serious threat to their safety and right to live together in peace.
Taking note of these circumstances, the Court acknowledged the legitimate apprehensions of the couple and proceeded to pass directions aimed at ensuring their protection.
Observations of the Court
Justice Sanjeev Narula categorically held that familial opposition cannot restrict the constitutionally guaranteed liberty of adults to choose their partners. The Court observed:
“The right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners and to live together in peace is a facet of their personal liberty, privacy, and dignity protected under Article 21. Family disapproval cannot curtail that autonomy. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this position and directed the police to safeguard such couples from intimidation or harm.”
The Court’s observations echo landmark rulings such as Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) and Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006), where the Supreme Court emphasized the primacy of individual autonomy in marriage choices. These precedents have consistently clarified that societal or familial disapproval cannot become grounds to interfere in the personal liberty of adults.
Directions Issued to the Police
Recognizing the imminent threats, the Court issued specific directions to the Delhi Police for the couple’s safety. These included:
- The Station House Officer (SHO) of the concerned police station must designate a beat officer specifically responsible for the couple’s protection.
- The beat officer is to be sensitised about the order and tasked with conducting regular checks to ensure their safety.
- The police must share the beat officer’s and the police station’s 24×7 contact details with the couple.
- Any complaint by the couple must be immediately recorded in the Daily Diary (DD) register, and necessary assistance must be provided without delay.
- Counsel for the petitioners was directed to share the couple’s current residence details and contact information with the Investigating Officer to facilitate coordination.
These directions, the Court clarified, were aimed at striking a balance between the couple’s autonomy and the State’s obligation to provide protection against threats.
Legal Context: Marriage and Article 21
The decision once again highlights the judiciary’s consistent approach in affirming that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is intrinsic to Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
In Shafin Jahan (popularly known as the Hadiya case), the Supreme Court held that the choice of a life partner lies within the exclusive domain of an individual and is an integral part of dignity and autonomy. Similarly, in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), the Court issued guidelines to prevent honour killings, noting that community or family objections cannot be allowed to thwart inter-caste or inter-faith marriages.
The present ruling of the Delhi High Court is firmly rooted in this jurisprudence, reaffirming that protection of personal liberty is not merely a theoretical right but one that must be actively enforced by the State against societal or familial interference.
Implications of the Judgment
The order carries significant implications, particularly in the context of increasing instances of threats and violence faced by couples who marry without family consent.
- Reinforcement of Autonomy: By reiterating that family opposition cannot curtail the right to marry, the Court strengthens the jurisprudential emphasis on autonomy as central to constitutional freedoms.
- Operational Accountability of Police: The explicit directions to designate a beat officer and provide contact details impose operational responsibility on the police, making them directly accountable for the couple’s safety.
- Precedent for Protection Orders: The ruling contributes to a growing body of judicial precedent that mandates proactive protection for couples in similar circumstances, thereby dissuading potential harassment or honour-based violence.
- Cultural and Social Tensions: While the order upholds constitutional principles, it also reflects the continuing social conflict between traditional family structures and the autonomy of individuals. Courts, through such orders, act as protectors of liberty in a landscape where conservative attitudes often lead to threats or coercion.
Possible Outcomes and Future Trajectory
This ruling is expected to encourage more couples facing similar threats to approach the courts for relief. The judiciary’s consistent stance may also push law enforcement agencies to adopt more systematic measures to safeguard vulnerable couples.
Moreover, as India continues to witness a rise in inter-caste and inter-faith marriages, judicial interventions of this nature highlight the constitutional vision of liberty, dignity, and equality. However, the gap between judicial pronouncements and ground-level realities remains significant, making continuous vigilance and enforcement crucial.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s order in Prince Tyagi and Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. underscores the judiciary’s role as a guardian of constitutional freedoms. By directing the police to provide protection to the couple, the Court reaffirmed that the autonomy of two consenting adults in choosing their life partner is beyond the reach of familial disapproval.
As societal tensions over marriage choices persist, such rulings act as a powerful reminder that constitutional principles of liberty, dignity, and privacy remain paramount, and the State bears a responsibility to protect them against all forms of private interference.
