Courts have duty to not infringe upon personal relationship between two adults: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently stated that courts must uphold constitutional morality rather than obscure notions of societal morality that are not legally tenable [Sunita v. State of Haryana]..Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj reiterated that the emphasis given to public morality, when in conflict with constitutional morality, was miniscule." ...there exists a parallel duty to not infringe upon the personal relationship between two free willed adults...The State’s respect for the individual independent choices has to be held high. The public morality cannot be allowed to overshadow the constitutional morality, particularly when the legal tenability of the right to protection is paramount," the order stated..In addition to their responsibility to uphold the principles of constitutional morality, courts have a parallel duty to not infringe upon the personal relationship between two free-willed adults, the Court held..The High Court was hearing a plea by a couple aged 18 and 27, who had married against their parents' wishes. They apprehended a threat to their lives, and claimed that there was a constant danger of their being implicated in false cases.The single-judge directed the Panipat Superintendent of Police to take appropriate action to protect the petitioners’ lives and liberty. It was clarified that if a criminal case was registered against them, the order would not be construed as a bar for taking appropriate action.Counsel for the State told the Court that the first petitioner had been married earlier, and that they had concealed vital information..Justice Bhardwaj echoed the principle established by the Supreme Court that it was not the court’s domain to intervene in matters of choice or suitability of a marriage or relationship of an individual.The Court relied on the judgment in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan KM, in which it was held that the decision regarding suitability of partners rested exclusively with the individuals themselves, and neither the State nor society could intrude into that domain.The judge said that the conflict or personal conviction of a court should not overshadow statutory and constitutional rights of an individual..It was further noted that protection under Article 21 could not be denied to a citizen simply on the ground that they committed an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code.“Such protection of law cannot be denied to a person except where the rights of the person or his liberties are to be denied to him by operation of law or in a procedure known to law,” the order stated..It was emphasised that an illegality may be punished by the State in tune with due process of law, but in no circumstances could it bypass due process and permit or condone any acts of moral policing or mob mentality.“When the Right to life and liberty is even guaranteed to convicted criminals of serious offences, there can be no reasonable nexus to not grant the same protection to those in an “legal/illegal relationships”.”.Advocate Rajesh Duhan appeared for the petitioners. The State was represented by Additional Advocate General for Haryana Ashish Yadav and Advocate RK Agnihotri argued for the family members of the petitioners..[Read Order]