Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Single-judge Justice MA Chowdhary said in cases where two adults decide to enter into wedlock, only the consent of the individuals involved needs to be considered with primacy.
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently ruled that the consent of family members is not required when two adults choose each other as life partners.
Single-judge Justice MA Chowdhary stated that in cases where two adults decide to marry, only the consent of the individuals involved must take precedence.
“In accordance with Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, when two adults select each other voluntarily as life partners, this is a representation of their choice.
Such a right is guaranteed by constitutional law, and once acknowledged, it must be safeguarded and cannot be subject to notions of class honour or groupthink.
Once two adults choose to wed, the agreement of their families, communities, or clans is not essential, and their consent must take precedence “The court ruled.
The bench was seized of a petition made by a girl and a boy who got married in accordance with Muslim traditions but against their families’ wishes. They wanted protection because they feared physical violence at the hands of their relatives.
In a ruling issued on June 17, the Court stated that it is the duty of the Constitutional courts to vigorously protect the individual’s right to liberty, since a person’s dignity is inextricably linked with liberty.
“Therefore, it is abundantly obvious that life and liberty without dignity and choice is a phenomena that permits emptiness to penetrate the constitutional acknowledgment of a person’s identity.
The decision of a person is inextricably linked to his or her dignity, since dignity cannot exist in the absence of choice, and no one should be entitled to interfere with the actualization of that choice “The sole judge stated.
It would be quite impossible to conceive of dignity in its hallowed entirety, he argued, if the right to express one’s own decision is impeded.
The judge said that if the freedom to select a life partner is restricted, it would constitute a constitutional breach.
“When two adults marry of their own desire, they select their route; they complete their relationship; they view it as their objective and believe they have the right to do so.
And it may be said categorically that they have the right and that any violation of that right constitutes a violation of the Constitution “The Court emphasised.
It consequently ordered the respondent authorities to provide the couple with proper security and to comply with the law.
A supplementary direction was issued to determine if the bride and groom are of legal age and if the marriage was performed in accordance with all applicable legislation.
The Court underlined that if there is a first information report (FIR) against any of the petitioners, the police must investigate in accordance with the guidelines.
Attorney Nadeem Gull represented the petitioners, while Attorney Insha Rashid represented the State authorities.
Â
