Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Marriage Protection Ruling 2026: Right to Choose Life Partner Is Core of Dignity Under Articles 19 & 21

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Marriage Protection Ruling: Court Upholds Adults’ Right to Marry by Choice

In a significant reaffirmation of constitutional freedoms, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court granted protection to a couple who married against the wishes of their families, holding that the right to choose a life partner is intrinsic to dignity, liberty, and identity under the Constitution of India.

Justice M A Chowdhary, while hearing a plea seeking security cover, observed in a February 9 order:

“If the right to express one’s own choice is obstructed, it would be extremely difficult to think of dignity in its sanctified completeness.”

The couple had approached the court apprehending violence and harassment from their relatives after marrying against family wishes.

Case Background: Couple Marries Under Muslim Personal Law, Seeks Police Protection

Naseem Akhter and Zulafqar Ali informed the court that:

• They are majors.

• They married on February 1, 2026, out of love and free will.

• The marriage was solemnised in accordance with Muslim Personal Law, rites and customs.

• They were facing threats, harassment and real fear of physical violence from relatives opposed to their union.

The petitioners stated that their decision to wed without family approval had exposed them to danger, forcing them to seek police protection to safeguard their life and liberty.

Advocate Nazia Fazal represented the couple and argued that:

• Both individuals are adults.

• They voluntarily contracted the marriage.

• They are living as husband and wife.

• They fear physical violence and harassment at the hands of relatives.

Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli appeared for the State.

Right to Choose Life Partner Integral to Dignity Under Articles 19 and 21

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court marriage protection ruling laid down important constitutional principles.

Key Observations by the Court

• When two adults consensually choose each other as life partners, it is a manifestation of their choice recognised under Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression) and Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty).

• Such a right has the sanction of constitutional law and must be protected.

• It cannot succumb to notions of “class, honour or group thinking”.

• Consent of family, community or clan is not necessary once two adults agree to enter into wedlock.

• The consent of the partners must be given primacy.

• The concept of liberty must be analysed on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, protection and the values it stands for.

• Constitutional courts, acting as sentinel on the qui vive (meaning alert and watchful), are obligated to zealously guard the right to liberty.

• Dignified existence has an inseparable association with liberty.

• Life and liberty without dignity and choice would render constitutional recognition of identity hollow.

• The choice of an individual is an integral and extricable part of dignity.

• Dignity cannot exist where there is erosion of choice.

• No one should be permitted to interfere with the fructification of such choice.

• Any infringement of the right of two consenting adults to marry is a constitutional violation.

Justice M A Chowdhary further observed on February 10:

“When two adults marry out of their volition, they choose their path; they consummate their relationship; they feel that it is their goal; and they have the right to do so. And, it can unequivocally be stated that they have the right and any infringement of the said right is a constitutional violation.”

February 3 Order: Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi on Constitutional Manifestation of Choice

In another unrelated case, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court granted protection to a couple who married against their families’ wishes.

Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi observed on February 3:

• The right of two adults to consensually choose each other as life partners is a “constitutional manifestation”.

• Consent of family, community or clan is not necessary once two adults agree to marry.

• The partners’ consent must be piously given primacy.

The married couple had approached the High Court stating apprehension of physical violence after marrying against the will of their relatives.

Directions Issued in Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Marriage Protection Case

While disposing of the petition, the court directed Union Territory authorities to provide adequate protection after assessing threat perception.

Authorities directed include:

• Principal Secretary (Home)

• Director General of Police

• Senior Superintendents of Police in Rajouri and Jammu

Compliance with Supreme Court Judgments

The court directed officials to act in accordance with principles laid down by the Supreme Court in:

• Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

• Shakti Vahini v. Union of India

These landmark rulings mandate protection for couples facing threats due to inter-caste or inter-community marriages.

Safeguards: Protection Not Automatic Validation of Marriage

The High Court imposed safeguards:

• Authorities must verify that both petitioners are majors.

• The marriage must have been solemnised in accordance with prevailing law.

• If any FIR exists against either petitioner, police may proceed with investigation strictly in accordance with law.

The court clarified:

“Needless to say, that the disposal of the instant Petition does not authenticate the marriage of the Petitioners or their age/majority to enter into marriage.”

Thus, protection does not amount to judicial authentication of the marriage or confirmation of age. Compliance with statutory requirements remains subject to verification.

Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Protection to Live-In Couples (2025)

In a separate 2025 order, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted protection to an unmarried couple in a live-in relationship who were allegedly threatened by family members.

The court ruled:

“The state is obligated to protect the life and liberty of such couples, even if they are not married but are in a live-in relationship.”

Fundamental Right to Life on a High Pedestal: 2025 Order

In another case, Justice Subhas Mehla directed the police to take “necessary steps” to protect a couple in a live-in relationship facing threats.

The 2025 order stated:

“The fundamental right to life and liberty is so sacrosanct and stands at such a high pedestal that it must be protected even in the absence of an incident like solemnisation of a valid marriage between the parties.”

The court underscored that the right to life and liberty must be protected even without a formally valid marriage.

Constitutional Position on Marriage by Choice and Live-In Relationships

Across these rulings, High Courts reiterated that:

• The right to choose a life partner is protected under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

• Personal liberty includes the freedom to marry or live together.

• Family or societal approval is not constitutionally required for adult relationships.

• Honour-based objections cannot override constitutional rights.

• Courts are duty-bound to protect life and liberty when credible threats exist.

• Life and liberty without dignity and choice would hollow out constitutional identity.

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Marriage Protection Ruling Strengthens Personal Liberty

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court marriage protection ruling of 2026, along with 2025 decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, reinforces a consistent constitutional principle:

When two adults consensually choose each other as life partners—whether through marriage or live-in relationship—their choice is protected under the Constitution.

Any interference based on family opposition, honour, class or group thinking amounts to a constitutional violation.

At the same time, courts have clarified that protection orders do not automatically validate marriages and remain subject to legal verification.