In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, dismissed a habeas corpus petition (CRWP-7809-2024) filed by a father seeking the release of his adult daughter from the alleged illegal custody of a private respondent. The Court emphasized that an adult woman has the right to make her own decisions and live independently, free from coercion or external influence.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, whose identity is not disclosed, approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. He claimed that his daughter was being held illegally by respondent No. 6 and sought her immediate release. Represented by Ms. Malkit Kaur, Advocate, the petitioner argued that his daughter should be returned to his custody for her safety and the welfare of her minor children, who were suffering due to her separation from her husband.
On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Mr. Shiva Khurmi, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, and Mr. Manish Bansal, Public Prosecutor for Chandigarh, contended that the daughter, a 30-year-old woman, had willingly chosen to live independently due to continuous harassment by her family members, including her brothers, who pressured her to return to her abusive husband.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Right to Personal Liberty and Autonomy: The core issue before the Court was whether the alleged detention of the woman by respondent No. 6 amounted to illegal custody, violating her fundamental right to personal liberty as guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
2. Scope of Habeas Corpus: The Court also examined the scope of the writ of habeas corpus, particularly whether it could be used to compel an adult woman to return to her familial home against her expressed wishes.
3. Balancing Familial Concerns with Constitutional Rights: The petition raised questions about balancing social and familial concerns against the individual’s constitutional rights to autonomy and liberty.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul made several important observations while delivering the judgment. She reiterated that the writ of habeas corpus is a tool to protect individual liberty against illegal detention and is designed to ensure that no person is deprived of their freedom without legitimate cause. The Court noted:
“The role of the Court is not to enforce social norms or morality but to uphold the principles of constitutional morality. An adult woman, like any other citizen, possesses the right to be treated as an independent and autonomous individual, free from coercion and undue influence.”
The Court emphasized that once an adult woman has expressed her desire to live independently, her choice must be respected. The Court dismissed the arguments presented by the petitioner, which were primarily rooted in social concerns and the potential consequences of the daughter’s decision to live separately. The Court stated:
“The argument that a father would be a better custodian of an adult woman than she herself is, is not only antiquated but also runs contrary to the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.”
The Court further added that the Constitution safeguards the right of an adult woman to live freely and make her own choices, without any interference from others, even if it is a well-meaning parent. It was noted that:
“The identity and autonomy of an adult woman are not defined by her relationships or familial obligations.”
Key Quotes from the Judgment
– “The Writ of Habeas Corpus is a constitutional mechanism to protect the personal liberty of an individual, and the Court is constitutionally bound to uphold this right.”
– “It is crucial to reaffirm that an adult woman, like any other citizen, possesses the right to be treated as an independent and autonomous individual, free from coercion and undue influence.”
– “The Constitution safeguards her right to live freely and make her own choices, without external interference.”
The Court concluded that no grounds were made out for the issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus to direct the official respondents to release the petitioner’s daughter from the alleged illegal custody of respondent No. 6. The petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that an adult woman’s right to autonomy and personal liberty cannot be overridden by familial or societal expectations.
