Choice Of Partner Constitutional Right, Consent Of Family, Community Not Necessary: HC
Last Updated:
'Consent of family or community or clan is not necessary. Once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock, their consent has to be piously given primacy,' the court said
Reaffirming individual liberty and constitutional rights, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court (HC) recently directed the police to provide protection to a man and woman who got married against their families' wishes and feared retaliation.
The court underscored that the choice of a life partner by consenting adults is a manifestation of their choice that is recognised under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
'Consent of family or community or clan is not necessary. Once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock, their consent has to be piously given primacy," the court said.
A bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while hearing a petition filed by Anamika Devi and her husband, noted that both individuals were majors and had entered into marriage of their own free will on March 26, in accordance with Hindu rites. The couple approached the court citing imminent threats of physical violence and harassment from their relatives due to their inter-familial marriage.
Observing that such consensual unions deserve Constitutional protection, the court held that neither family approval nor societal endorsement is necessary once two consenting adults decide to marry.
'The concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity," Justice Nargal observed, adding that liberty without dignity and choice would reduce the constitutional identity of an individual to mere hollowness. He further stated that 'no one shall be permitted to interfere in the fructification of the said choice", terming any such obstruction a violation of constitutional rights.
The court clarified that the current order does not validate the marriage or confirm the petitioners' age or majority. These aspects, it said, are subject to verification as per prevailing legal standards.
First Published:
April 25, 2025, 16:02 IST
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
44 minutes ago
- Time of India
HC to state: Justify SC/ST/OBC quotas in minority institutions
Mumbai: Bombay high court on Tuesday questioned state govt on what basis had it issued the govt resolution (GR) including SC, ST and OBC reservations for FYJC admission in minority institutions in the state. "Justify your stand," said Justices Makarand Karnik and Nitin Borkar and posted the hearing on Wednesday. They heard a petition by Solapur's APD Jain Pathashala, a trust that runs Walchand College of Arts and Science and Hirachand Nemchand College of Commerce, filed through advocate Sandeep Waghmare, challenging the May 6 GR issued by the school education and sports department applying constitutional/social reservations in minority education institutes. Even as HC began hearing this case, colleges such as St Xavier's, Jai Hind, HR, KC and Maharashtra College that filed a joint petition with the Maharashtra Association of Minority Educational Institution against the GR, sought a hearing too. All matters will be heard on Wednesday. Advocate S C Naidu, for the Solapur colleges, argued that Article 15 (5) of the Indian Constitution excludes minority educational institutions, aided or unaided, from applicability of reservations for socially and educationally backward classes. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Trade Bitcoin & Ethereum – No Wallet Needed! IC Markets Start Now Undo He said that under Article 30 (1) (Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions), the right of admission is exclusively with the management of the minority institution. Naidu also questioned the timing of implementation of the reservations. "This they do at the last minute," he said, adding that it disturbs the admission procedure. Naidu said an identical GR was issued on March 7, 2019, by state govt and was "simply" withdrawn after petitions were filed in HC. "They are playing not only with colleges, but also with students ...Students have to go through stress for studies, for exams and now this stress of uncertainty in admission," Naidu added. The judges then asked the state's advocate to take instruction and inform. Naidu said the finalisation of the merit list is scheduled for Wednesday. The judges then directed that it will be subject to the outcome of the petition. The petition, filed by Maharashtra Association of Minority Institutions and Mumbai colleges, through advocate Manorama Mohanty, said being minority educational institutions, they are governed by an indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 30 to establish, administer and manage educational institutions of their own choice. Further, this right has been acknowledged and reiterated in a series of judgments of Supreme Court as well as Bombay HC "which have consistently held that the minority educational institutions are not subject to any social reservations". The petitioners urged HC to quash and set aside the contentious portion of the May 6 GR and to stay it pending hearing. They also sought directions to state govt to update/rectify the in-house and management quotas and to follow the seat distribution matrix used in 2024-25 academic year. This year, the seat distribution matrix has reduced the management and in-house quota share to half. Mumbai: Bombay high court on Tuesday questioned state govt on what basis had it issued the govt resolution (GR) including SC, ST and OBC reservations for FYJC admission in minority institutions in the state. "Justify your stand," said Justices Makarand Karnik and Nitin Borkar and posted the hearing on Wednesday. They heard a petition by Solapur's APD Jain Pathashala, a trust that runs Walchand College of Arts and Science and Hirachand Nemchand College of Commerce, filed through advocate Sandeep Waghmare, challenging the May 6 GR issued by the school education and sports department applying constitutional/social reservations in minority education institutes. Even as HC began hearing this case, colleges such as St Xavier's, Jai Hind, HR, KC and Maharashtra College that filed a joint petition with the Maharashtra Association of Minority Educational Institution against the GR, sought a hearing too. All matters will be heard on Wednesday. Advocate S C Naidu, for the Solapur colleges, argued that Article 15 (5) of the Indian Constitution excludes minority educational institutions, aided or unaided, from applicability of reservations for socially and educationally backward classes. He said that under Article 30 (1) (Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions), the right of admission is exclusively with the management of the minority institution. Naidu also questioned the timing of implementation of the reservations. "This they do at the last minute," he said, adding that it disturbs the admission procedure. Naidu said an identical GR was issued on March 7, 2019, by state govt and was "simply" withdrawn after petitions were filed in HC. "They are playing not only with colleges, but also with students ...Students have to go through stress for studies, for exams and now this stress of uncertainty in admission," Naidu added. The judges then asked the state's advocate to take instruction and inform. Naidu said the finalisation of the merit list is scheduled for Wednesday. The judges then directed that it will be subject to the outcome of the petition. The petition, filed by Maharashtra Association of Minority Institutions and Mumbai colleges, through advocate Manorama Mohanty, said being minority educational institutions, they are governed by an indefeasible right guaranteed under Article 30 to establish, administer and manage educational institutions of their own choice. Further, this right has been acknowledged and reiterated in a series of judgments of Supreme Court as well as Bombay HC "which have consistently held that the minority educational institutions are not subject to any social reservations". The petitioners urged HC to quash and set aside the contentious portion of the May 6 GR and to stay it pending hearing. They also sought directions to state govt to update/rectify the in-house and management quotas and to follow the seat distribution matrix used in 2024-25 academic year. This year, the seat distribution matrix has reduced the management and in-house quota share to half.
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
Gujarat HC dismisses plea seeking injunction order to Mahatma Gandhi Sabarmati Ashram Memorial Trust from dispossessing family
Gujarat High Court (HC) on Tuesday dismissed a petition moved by a family living on a property within the Gandhi Ashram precincts, seeking injunction order to Mahatma Gandhi Sabarmati Ashram Memorial Trust (MGSAMT) from dispossessing them from two suit properties measuring a total of 6,000 square yards on which they claimed tenancy rights. The court of Justice Sanjeev Thaker passed the order. The MGSAMT is implementing the Rs 1,200 crore Sabarmati Ashram redevelopment project. The petition was moved by one Mohanbhai Rathod and his family members, who challenged the orders of a Small Causes Court and an appellate court rejecting their application to issue an injunction order for two properties over which they claimed tenancy rights. Originally, the plaintiff had moved a house rent petition (HRP) suit before the Small Causes Court with reference to three properties — A, B and C — situated within Sabarmati Ashram precincts. Property B is a residential accommodation and properties A and C are plots of land. They had also sought injunction orders against the concerned trust of the ashram in 2014 while claiming tenancy rights. The Small Causes Court had in 2019 granted injunction for Property B, while rejecting the application for properties A and C. This order was challenged before the appellate court which upheld the order. Following this, the plaintiff moved a revision application before the HC, which rejected the revision application while upholding the order of the appellate court. The plaintiff, among other things, had argued that the properties in dispute were handed over to the grandfather of the plaintiff by the trustee of the trust concerned somewhere in 1930. They also argued that the defendant trust accepted the rent for the all three properties since 1977. The defendant trust opposed the petition while arguing that there is nothing in the evidence, including rent receipts produced by the plaintiff, to suggest that the properties referred to in it are with respect to the property mentioned as Properties A and C.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Backwardness only criteria for OBC classification, says Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee
West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee on Tuesday told the assembly that OBC classification hasn't been done on religion, the only benchmark for it being the backwardness of a community. "A high court division bench order led to the exclusion of several groups from the OBC category. The West Bengal government took the matter to the Supreme Court," Banerjee said. In compliance with the HC order, a public notification was issued, she said. All action was taken, abiding by the law, and it has been submitted to court, she said. There were a total of 140 recognised groups among OBCs. Banerjee said out of 140, around 61 are from the majority Hindu community and 79 from the minority community.
