‘Marrying a person of choice is a fundamental right’

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is a fundamental right. This observation was made during the hearing of a protection plea filed by a couple who claimed to have legally married and feared threats from their relatives.

Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, presiding over the case, stated, “To marry a person of one’s own choice is the fundamental right of every citizen. No one is bestowed with any right or authority to interfere in the marriage preferences of independent adults.”

The court noted that if the authorities had handled the couple’s representation with appropriate care and circumspection, they would not have been compelled to approach the court for protection. The couple had filed a protection plea against the State of Punjab and other respondents, fearing for their life and liberty due to grievances from their families over their marriage.

The petitioners had previously made a representation to the police authorities before turning to the court. The court observed that the primary reason for filing the plea was the family members’ grievances, which had caused the couple to fear for their safety.

Justice Tiwari remarked, “The court is unable to comprehend how two mature, responsible, and consenting adults, who have decided to spend their lives together and have legally solemnised their marriage, are not allowed to live a peaceful life as per their wishes.”

He further added that had the concerned authorities dealt with the petitioners’ representation properly, the couple would not have needed to seek court intervention. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of “Laxmibai Chandaragi B & Anr v the State of Karnataka & Ors”, which emphasised that the consent of family, community, or clan is not necessary once two adult individuals decide to marry.

The court highlighted that despite detailed guidelines issued by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, the petitioners had to seek judicial intervention for a mandamus directing the authorities to act on their representation.

Without assessing the evidentiary value of the documents presented, the court disposed of the plea and directed the Commissioner of Police to decide on the representation and provide protection if any threat to their lives and liberty is perceived.