The Uttarakhand High Court reaffirmed that State authorities are obligated to assess and provide protective measures to consenting adult couples facing threats due to their marriage, in line with the Supreme Court’s ratio in *Lata Singh v. State of U.P.* This judgment confirms existing precedent, emphasizing its binding nature for all subordinate authorities, especially in matters concerning life and personal liberty arising from private choices in marriage.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPCRL/1354/2025 of TWINKAL Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010171062025 |
| Date of Registration | 29-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G. NARENDAR |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Bench | Division Bench (G. Narendar, C.J. and Subhash Upadhyay, J.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent (Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475) |
| Type of Law | Constitutional law (Right to life and personal liberty, Article 21) |
| Questions of Law | Whether the police/state authorities are mandated to provide protection to consenting adult couples facing threats from family members due to marriage. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that when two consenting adults marry and face threats to their life and liberty, they are entitled to protection. The decision relied on and followed the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., reaffirming the State’s duty under Article 21 to protect life and liberty irrespective of familial or social opposition. The SHO was directed to assess the threat and provide necessary protection, and to counsel those inimical to the marriage. The case reinforces that personal autonomy in marriage must be safeguarded by the State. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | State’s obligation to protect personal liberty; the principle that adults have the autonomy to choose their spouse; Supreme Court authority in Lata Singh |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Both petitioners, belonging to the same community, developed mutual affection and married on 22.09.2025. Facing threats to life and limb from the family of the first petitioner, they sought police protection, presenting their marriage certificate as proof. Petitioners asserted imminent danger due to continued opposition from family and relatives. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and police authorities in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and police administrations in other States |
| Follows | Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates and operationalizes the obligation of state authorities to assess and provide protection to consenting adult couples threatened by kin over their marriage.
- Directs not only protection but also mandates police to counsel those opposed to such marriages, providing a procedural safeguard.
- Reinforces that production of a valid marriage certificate, and proof of majority, suffices for triggering the court’s protective jurisdiction.
- Lawyers may cite this as a ready precedent for immediate protective relief in cases involving threats from family due to marital choice.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
The court recorded that both petitioners were adults and had legally married, as established by the marriage certificate on record. Accepting petitioners’ claims of specific threats from family members, the court referenced the Supreme Court’s clear position in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., which enjoins state authorities to shield consenting adults exercising marital autonomy from extra-legal familial or societal coercion. Following the settled position, the court ordered the concerned police officer to assess threats and provide appropriate protection, thus aligning state responsibility with constitutional guarantees under Article 21. The police were further tasked with summoning and counseling the hostile relatives, to mediate and mitigate familial opposition through lawful means.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Both parties are majors and married of their own free will.
- Facing serious, credible threats to life and limb from family members opposed to the marriage.
- Sought urgent protective intervention of the court and police.
Respondent / State
- Confirmed that both parties are adult and have produced a marriage certificate.
- Did not dispute the marriage or the majority of both petitioners.
- No opposition recorded to the prayer for protection.
Factual Background
The petitioners, belonging to the same community, developed mutual affection and solemnized their marriage on 22.09.2025. Their union was not accepted by the first petitioner’s family and relatives, who allegedly issued threats to kill them. Fearing for their safety, the married couple approached the High Court seeking police protection, presenting their marriage certificate and asserting that they are both of majority age.
Statutory Analysis
The court applied Article 21 of the Constitution of India, affirming the right to life and personal liberty. The judgment expressly relied on the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., which recognized the autonomy of consenting adults to marry without familial interference, and the corollary obligation of the State to provide protection where threats exist. No other statutory or constitutional provisions were analyzed.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were delivered; both judges concurred in the operative order and reasoning.
Procedural Innovations
- The court specifically directed the police not only to grant protection if threat is found, but also to counsel the hostile family members and others, thereby establishing a procedural directive to address the root social opposition in such cases.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court precedent in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. was expressly affirmed and applied.