The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that consenting adults have a constitutional right to marry, stating that neither society, the state, nor their families can interfere in such decisions. The court granted police protection to a couple facing threats from the woman’s father, emphasizing the primacy of individual liberty under Article 21.
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that two consenting adults have the constitutional right to marry, and no person—including their parents, relatives, society at large, or even state authorities—can interfere in such a decision.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee made the observation while granting protection to a married couple who approached the court alleging threats from the woman’s father, who disapproved of their union.
The order, passed on February 2, underscores the fundamental nature of the right to choose a life partner. “The right to marry is an incident of human liberty and choice, which is an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” the court said.
The couple, both majors, were married in July 2025 through Hindu rites at an Arya Samaj mandir and subsequently registered their marriage with the competent Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM). However, the woman’s father allegedly opposed the marriage and had been threatening them.
Granting police protection, the court observed:
“Since the petitioners herein are both major and are well within their rights to marry each other, and who being consenting adults, have willingly chosen to hold their hands and walk through their entire journey of life by entering into the sacred thread of marriage, no one, much less the society, the state machinery or even their parents or relatives or friends can cause interference to the decision of the petitioners in any manner whatsoever from now on.”
Justice Banerjee further stressed the need to respect the couple’s autonomy:
“In fact, sanctity has to be given to their decision of entering into marriage, especially since the petitioners are consenting adults who incontrovertibly have the constitutional right to choose their respective life partners.”
The court made it clear that no individual, including the woman’s father, can be allowed to threaten or curtail the liberty of the couple. It emphasized that such personal decisions do not require “social approval.”
The ruling aligns with previous judicial affirmations of the right to marry as a core element of personal liberty, and highlights the court’s continued protection of individual autonomy against social or familial coercion.
