Caste and community tensions will possibly reduce if educated youngsters choose their life partners: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the autonomy of an individual when it comes to choosing her life partner is integral to the dignity of the individual (Laxmibai Chandargi B v. State of Karnataka)..The Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy noted that youngsters who choose to marry persons of their choice continue to face threats from elders, and that courts often come to their aid. The judgment states,"Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable and even matters of faith would have the least effect on them. The right to marry a person of choice was held to be integral Article 21 of the Constitution of India.".The Court passed the judgment in a petition filed by a Karnataka-based college lecturer against whom a missing persons case was registered by her parents.The case was lodged after the petitioner, without informing her parents, flew to Delhi to marry a man from Uttar Pradesh. A day after the police complaint was filed, the petitioner sent her parents a copy of the marriage certificate by WhatsApp..The investigating officer (IO) in the case had urged the petitioner to appear before the Murgod Police Station at Belagavi District, Karnataka. This, after the petitioner had informed the IO that she was residing with her husband, and that she was unable to visit the said police station owing to threats from her parents and her uncle..Regardless of this information, the police refused to close the missing persons case and instead threatened to file a case of kidnapping against the petitioner's husband if she does not appear at the police station in Belagavi. The IO also told the petitioner that her family members may file a case against her on the allegation that she has stolen things from the home, and that if an FIR is filed, her husband would have to be arrested..The petitioner then approached the Allahabad High Court for relief. But since the case could not be taken up at the High Court, she approached the Supreme Court..On the point of the parents' failure to accept the marriage, the Court noted,"Educated younger boys and girls are choosing their life partners which, in turn is a departure from the earlier norms of society where caste and community play a major role. Possibly, this is the way forward where caste and community tensions will reduce by such inter marriage but in the meantime these youngsters face threats from the elders and the Courts have been coming to the aid of these youngsters.".Relying on its previous judgments in Shafin Jahan and KS Puttaswamy, the Court "We are fortified in our view by earlier judicial pronouncements of this Court clearly elucidating that the consent of the family or the community or the clan is not necessary once the two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock and that their consent has to be piously given primacy. It is in that context it was further observed that the choice of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of where there is erosion of choice. Such a right or choice is not is not expected to succumb to the concept of “class honour” or “group thinking.”".The apex court took a dim view of the conduct of the IO, noting in the judgment,"If the IO could have visited the residence of petitioner No.2, he could very well have recorded the statement of petitioner No.1 at the place where the petitioners were residing rather than insisting and calling upon the petitioners to come to the local police station at Karnataka... We strongly deprecate the conduct of the IO in adopting these tactics and the officer must be sent for counseling as to how to manage such cases.".The judgment states that the case would not have reached the Supreme Court if the IO performed his role correctly. The Bench thus directed that adequate training programmes be held for police personnel on how to handle sensitive cases."The way forward to the police authorities is to not only counsel the current IOs but device a training programme to deal with such cases for the benefit of the police personnel. We expect the police authorities to take action in this behalf in the next eight weeks to lay down some guidelines and training programmes how to handle such socially sensitive cases.".The Court thus quashed the FIR lodged against the petitioner and expressed hope that the parents will have "better sense" to accept the marriage and re-establish social interaction with their daughter and son-in-law..[Read judgment]