corporate law
In a landmark judgment pronounced on June 7, 2024, the Allahabad High Court—recognized as the largest High Court globally—reaffirmed the fundamental rights of adults in the case Criminal Misc. The Court stated unequivocally that no adult can be restrained from choosing their residence or from solemnizing marriage according to their own will, emphasizing that this right is derived from Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Division Bench, consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice JJ Munir and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, expressed strong disapproval regarding the actions of a Judicial Magistrate who ordered an adult woman, the first petitioner, to return to her uncle's home. This decision came after her uncle, the respondent number 3, filed a First Information Report (FIR) against her husband, the second petitioner. The Court noted that the woman had previously articulated her fear for her life if sent to her uncle’s home during her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The Allahabad High Court emphasized that the order to send the woman back was fundamentally flawed. The Court highlighted that an adult cannot be forcibly placed in the custody of another individual against their will. Consequently, the High Court quashed the FIR, noting that the allegations in the FIR did not substantiate any criminal charges against the accused. Additionally, it ordered the Superintendent of Police and the Station House Officer, Police Station-Bansi, District-Siddharthnagar, to facilit3
The Court further mandated that the relevant police officials ensure the safety of the woman from any possible harm instigated by her uncle or other family members. Acknowledging the prevalence of honor killings in such disputes, the Court asserted that law enforcement officers are constitutionally responsible for safeguarding the woman's life and security.
The Division Bench referenced established legal criteria from the case State of Haryana & Others Vs. Bhajan Lal And Others, which delineates conditions under which an FIR may be quashed. Specifically, it underscored:
Consequently, the Court directed police authorities to guarantee the petitioner's freedom to choose her residence and maintain her safety against threats from her family, with the responsibility falling squarely on the Superintendent of Police and the Station House Officer for any failure to protect her.
Justice Renu Agarwal’s Ruling (Feb 2024): Denied protection to a Muslim-Hindu couple in a live-in relationship, citing Shariat Law’s prohibition of Zina (adultery). This prioritizes personal laws over constitutional rights (,).
UP Conversion Law Complications: In January 2024, the court dismissed petitions from eight interfaith couples for non-compliance with the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 (,). These cases highlight systemic hurdles for interfaith couples despite Article 21.
The HC often denies protection to interfaith couples lacking marriage certificates while granting it to same-faith couples without documentation. This contradicts Supreme Court guidelines (Devu G Nair v. State of Kerala) mandating interim protection regardless of marital status (,).
The Act requires 60-day advance notice for religious conversion, creating bureaucratic barriers for interfaith marriages. While the June 2024 judgment sidestepped this issue, other rulings (e.g., Ayesha Parveen v. State of UP) strictly enforce it, complicating marriage rights (,).
This ruling from the Allahabad High Court marks a significant affirmation of individual rights and personal autonomy, reiterating that no adult should face coercion regarding their life choices, especially in the context of marriage. Furthermore, the decision stresses the obligation of judicial and law enforcement officials to act decisively to prevent any form of harm, ensuring the preservation of human life against misguided coercive practices.