Right to Choose Life Partner at Core of Dignity: Rules Jammu Kashmir High Court | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has granted protection to a couple who married against the wishes of their families, holding that obstructing an individual’s right to choose a life partner strikes at the “core of dignity.”

Justice MA Chowdhary passed the order on February 9 while hearing a plea filed by the couple seeking protection and security cover. The petitioners stated that they apprehended physical violence and harassment from their relatives after contracting marriage out of their own free will.

Observing that the right to make personal choices is intrinsic to constitutional liberty, the court said, “If the right to express one’s own choice is obstructed, it would be extremely difficult to think of dignity in its sanctified completeness.”

The petitioners, both adults, had married in August 2024 as per Muslim Personal Law rites and customs. The court noted that when two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is a manifestation of their choice recognised under Article 19 (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.

The court emphasised that the consent of family, community or clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock. It held that the partners’ consent must be given primacy and cannot succumb to notions of “class, honour or group thinking.”

“The choice of an individual is an integral part of dignity since dignity cannot be considered where there is erosion of choice, and no one should be permitted to interfere with the same,” the court observed, adding that any infringement of such a right would amount to a constitutional violation.

The bench further underlined that courts are obligated to zealously guard the right to liberty, as dignified existence has an inseparable association with liberty. Life and liberty without dignity and choice, it said, would render the constitutional right of identity hollow.

Advocate Nazia Fazal, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that her clients were majors, had solemnised their marriage voluntarily and were living as husband and wife. She informed the court that the couple feared violence and harassment at the hands of relatives due to the marriage being against their wishes. Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli represented the Union Territory in the matter.

In a separate but similar case earlier this month, Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi of the same High Court granted protection to another couple who had married against family wishes, observing that the right of two adults to consensually choose each other as life partners is a “constitutional manifestation” of choice and that family or community consent is not required.

Comparable views have also been expressed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in recent orders granting protection to couples in live-in relationships facing threats from family members. In one such 2025 order, Justice Subhas Mehla directed the police to take necessary steps to safeguard a couple’s life and liberty, observing that the fundamental right to life stands on a “high pedestal” and must be protected even in the absence of a formally solemnised marriage.

The latest order of the High Court reiterates that personal liberty, dignity and the freedom to choose a partner are constitutionally protected rights, and that the state is obligated to ensure protection where such rights are threatened.