Constitutional rights need not always be enforced: Madhya Pradesh High Court in teen live-in couple's case

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently expressed its reluctance in enforcing the rights of a young live-in couple who had approached it for the protection of their lives..The Court remarked that it was not always necessary to enjoy or enforce certain rights, even if they are guaranteed by the Constitution of India..Justice Subodh Abhyankar was hearing a petition seeking protection for a teenage couple who were living together against the wishes of their parents. Though it did not deny protection to the teenagers - both of whom were about 19 years old - the Court expressed its concern over the choices of youngsters these days. “This Court must record its concern on the choices, the youngsters are making these days. Although there is much to ponder over this subject but it must be remembered that even though certain rights have been conferred by the Constitution, it is not necessary to enjoy, and enforce them as well (sic),” Justice Abhyankar said..The Court further alluded to the consequences that follow when entering into relationships at such a young age. The Court noted that India was not a country where the State provides any allowance to the unemployed and uneducated. Thus, those not dependent on parents would have to earn a livelihood for their own self as well as their partner. “This would naturally obviate possibility of going to a school or a college, and if you get into this struggle of life at an early age by choice, not only your chances of enjoying the other opportunities of life are drastically affected but your acceptance in the society is also reduced,” it added.The Court also referred to the additional difficulties a girl may face in case she becomes pregnant at an earlier age and thus advised caution, both in exercise of one's choices and enforcement of one's rights.“It is far more difficult for a girl who can also become pregnant at an early age, leading to further complications in her life. Thus, discretion is advised while opting for such choices and enforcing such rights, as it is one thing to have the rights and another to enforce them.”.In the present case, the couple apprehended a threat to their lives from the parents of the girl. The counsel representing them cited a Supreme Court judgement in which it was opined that a major couple, even if not legally eligible to marry, have a right to live together.However, the State opposed the petition and submitted that the boy was only 19 years old and thus not even of marriageable age. It was further submitted that if any protection were give to such couples, it would not be in the larger interest of the society as it would “promote promiscuousness” in the society..However, the High Court allowed the petition filed by the couple in view of the Supreme Court's observations on the subject.“This Court is inclined to allow the present petition as despite the fact that both the petitioners are 19 years old only, and the petitioner no.2 has not even completed 21 years, since he is a major, he is entitled to reside as per his own will, and if he so decides, his choice needs to be protected from external forces.”.It thus directed the authorities to provide requisite protection to the couple. The Station House Officer of the local police station was directed to provide his mobile number to the couple so that they could reach him in case of an emergency.However, the Court also asked the counsel representing the couple to apprise them about the concerns expressed by it regarding their relationship..Advocate Apoorv Joshi represented the petitioners,Advocate Amay Bajaj represented the State of Madhya Pradesh..[Read Judgment]