Conviction Cannot Stand On Contradictory Police Testimony Without Medical Evidence: Calcutta High Court Acquits Accused In 1993 Rioting Case Criminal Law Cannot Be Used to Criminalise Governance Decisions: Punjab & Haryana High Court Discharges Bhupinder Singh Hooda in AJL Plot Case Money Laundering Is A Continuing Offence; Even Persons Not Named In Predicate FIR Can Be Prosecuted: Jharkhand High Court Refuses To Discharge Accused In ₹13.29 Crore PMLA Case Failure To Obtain Demarcation To Ascertain Location Of Boundary Wall Fatal To Injunction Suit, Adverse Inference Must Be Drawn: Himachal Pradesh High Court When Cost Of Acquisition Is Incapable Of Determination, Capital Gains Tax Cannot Arise: Gujarat High Court On Transfer Of Self-Generated Trademarks Tenant Cannot Turn Residential Portion of SCF into Commercial Workshop Without Permission: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Eviction Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 | ‘Saved Permits’ Exempt From 140km Cap Until KSRTC Introduces Service: Kerala High Court Surplus Land Proceedings Cannot Be Reopened After Decades Through Civil Suit: Punjab & Haryana High Court Where Two Promotional Avenues Exist, Higher Grade Must Follow the Lowest Promotional Post: Gujarat High Court Rejects Class-IV Employees’ Claim for Tradesman Pay Scale Congress MLA's Election Void For Hiding Criminal Cases: MP High Court Documents Not Foreign To Pleadings Can Be Produced During Cross-Examination: Bombay High Court Act Nowhere Mandates Certificate By Treating Doctor : Bombay High Court Revives Workman’s Compensation Claim Doctrine of Laches Is a Rule of Practice, Not a Rule of Law: Supreme Court's Comprehensive Restatement in Mizo Chiefs Case Confirmed Auction Sale Not Immune From Scrutiny on Valuation: Supreme Court Upholds Remand to DRT, Protects Bona Fide Purchaser's Rights Excise Constable Convicted for Demanding Rs. 500 Bribe Cannot Escape on 35-Year-Old Technicalities: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction, Modifies Sentence Considering Age Mere Acquaintance With Complainant Cannot Make a Witness 'Interested': Supreme Court Sets Clear Bar for Discrediting Prosecution Witnesses in Corruption Cases Sole Testimony Without Corroboration Unsafe For Conviction In Delayed Rape FIR: Supreme Court Acquits Four ED Cannot Freeze Entire Company Accounts When Sole Surviving FIR Involves Only Rs.42 Lakhs: Karnataka High Court Mahanta Cannot Sue in Personal Name for Math Property: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree

Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to marry whomever one chooses - SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Apex court observed that There's a chance that such inter-caste marriages will reduce tensions between castes and communities in the future, but for now, these young people face threats from their elders, and the courts have stepped in to help them.

Petitioner's father filed a missing person's report after learning that his daughter (Petitioner No. 1) had ran away from home without telling her parents and had married petitioner No. 2, who then told IO of her marriage. For the sake of closing the case, IO demanded to go to the police station and give a statement. Petitioner No. 1 wrote to the IO explaining that she was married to Petitioner No. 2 and that her parents had threatened her, thus she was unable to go to the police station to file a report. Petitioner No.2 was threatened by IO and told to return to Karnataka or else a kidnapping case will be filed against him.

Petitioners approached the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

A transcript of the conversation between petitioner No.1 and the IO, in which the IO threatened her to return to Karnataka because otherwise they would come to her and register a case of kidnapping against petitioner No.2, produced in court.

Apex court expressed displeasure and stated that IO unquestionably attempted to compel petitioner No. 1 to appear at the police station and give a statement about the possibility that her parents would file a false complaint against petitioner No. 2 and that the police would then take action to arrest petitioner No. 2 as a result. These tactics are strongly deprecated by the IO, and the officer should be sent for counselling on how to handle such situations.

When it comes to choosing a life partner, educated young men and women are defying traditional social norms that rely heavily on caste and community to make the right decisions.

Hon’ble court clearly stated that Once two adults agree to marry, the consent of their families, communities, or clans is not required, and their consent must be given paramount importance. The right to marry a person of choice was held to be integral Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Apex court while issuing the directions stated that ,With this in mind, authorities should not only counsel current IOs, but also devise training programs for police officers to handle such situations. Police authorities will act in this regard within the next eight weeks to establish some guidelines and training programs on how to handle cases of this socially sensitive nature cases. And quashed the FIR against petitioner No.2

February 8, 2021. 

LAXMIBAI CHANDARAGI B & ANR.    VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.   

Latest Legal News