Case Analysis by: Pooja Shrivastava
Date of judgment: February 8, 2021
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Hrishikesh Roy
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Writ Petition [Criminal] No.359/2020
Introduction:
According to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, having the fundamental right to select your life partner, which is the subject of this lawsuit. No one may be deprived of their personal life or freedom, unless in accordance with legal procedure, according to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Following a denial of their petition by the Allahabad High Court, the petitioners, in this case, turned to the Indian Supreme Court pursuant to Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. In the event that their fundamental rights are violated, both citizens and non-citizens of India have the right to constitutional remedies under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which allows them to file a lawsuit directly with the Supreme Court.
Facts :
According to the plea, Mr Basappa Chandragi lodged a complaint at the Murgod Police Station in the Savadatti Taluk of the Belagavi district. He made the complaint because his daughter Laxmibai Chandragi (petitioner No. 1) had been missing since October 14, 2020. As a result, an FIR (FIR No. 226/2020) was filed, and the investigating officer also made note of all the call information while also recording the statement of Laxmibai's parents and other family members. Following an investigation, it was discovered that Petitioner No. 1 had flown from Hubli to Bangalore before landing in Delhi without telling her parents. She wed Mr Santosh Yadav (petitioner No. 2) after arriving in Delhi without her parents' permission.
Then, on October 15, 2020, she decided to transmit her marriage certificate to her parents via the social media platform WhatsApp, informing them of her marriage to petitioner No. 2. Evidently, the investigating officer visited the home of petitioner No. 2 in Ghaziabad, where his parents admitted that they were unaware of the location of the petitioners. Despite the fact that Laxmibai had already wed Santosh and was living with him, the investigating officer (IO) pushed Petitioner No. 1 to provide a statement at the Murgod police station in order to end the case.
Upon receiving the IO notice, Petitioner No. 1 responded through a letter, stating that she would be unable to visit the station due to threats from her parents. The investigating officer did not declare the case closed; instead, he issued threats to the petitioners, warning them to return to Karnataka or else a fake case would be made against her husband, petitioner No. 2. The petitioners contend that the uncle of the petitioner No. 1 threatened them. The petitioners sought protection for themselves and their families on October 19, 2020, but even after almost one month, the matter could not be taken up for an urgent hearing.
Issues Raised:
1. Do parents have to approve a marriage?
2. The right to marry the person of one's choice is it protected by Article 21?
3. Exist any rules that the police are required to follow when handling such delicate matters?
Arguments of the Petitioner:
· The knowledgeable attorney for the petitioners argued that the investigating officer did not close the case even though petitioner No. 1 sent a letter explaining why she was unable to visit the Murgod Police station due to life-threatening difficulties from her parents.
· He further argued that in the transcript of the conversation between the petitioner No. 1 and the police that was provided to the court, it was noted that the IO had asked her to arrive in Karnataka as soon as possible because otherwise, her family would falsely accuse petitioner 2 of kidnapping, which would unquestionably have a negative impact on his ability to do his job.
· Additionally, he warned that if she did not travel to Karnataka, her family members would work with the IO to report her for stealing property, which would be terrible for petitioner No. 2's position.
· He persuaded the court that both petitioners were extremely intelligent and well-versed. While petitioner No. 1's wife holds an M.A.Ed., petitioner No. 2 holds an MTech from NIT, Tiruchirappalli. Petitioner No. 1 was a Lecturer at the KLES (Karnataka Lingayat Education Society) Pre-University College in Bailhongal, and it appears that they grew fond of one another during these assignments. Petitioner No. 2 had been hired as an Assistant Professor at the Jain College of Engineering in Belagavi, Karnataka.
· He concluded by stating that while the parents of petitioner number two had no issues with their daughter getting married to petitioner number two, the parents of petitioner number one were not.
Arguments of the Respondent:
· The investigating officer filed an FIR, according to the learned counsel's appeal, even though the parents of petitioner No. 1 were unable to locate their daughter.
· Additionally, he claimed that Laxmibai was invited to the Murgod police station because the investigating officer wanted to wrap off the investigation.
· The claim that the investigating officer ever threatened the petitioner was refuted by knowledgeable counsel.
Judgment:
The proceedings in accordance with FIR No. 226/2020 dated 15.10.2020 registered at Murgod Police Station, Belagavi District, Karnataka are quashed in the present case with the hope that the parents of petitioner No. 1 will have the more common sense to accept the marriage and re-establish social interaction not only with petitioner No. 1 but also with the other petitioners. That is the only course of action, in our opinion. The processes resulting from the FIR were declared invalid by the Supreme Court. According to a Supreme Court order, the investigating officer must be sent for counselling on how to handle instances of this nature.
Analysis:
The police department managed the situation poorly. After speaking with the investigating officials, Laxmi made it apparent that she was married to Santosh and that she felt pressured to leave the police station and return to her hometown to make her statement. Laxmi's statement could readily be recorded by the investigating officer rather than being threatened or coerced into making a false complaint against her husband.
The top court accurately noted that educated youth face threats from their families and have been helped by the courts because they are choosing their life partners in a way that goes against traditional societal norms in which caste and religion were important factors. The cases that the court cited made it abundantly clear that people have the freedom to select their life partner in accordance with article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and that the consent of elders is not necessary if both parties freely consent to get married because each person's choice is an expression of their dignity.
Conclusion:
A fundamental right that is safeguarded by article 21 of the Indian Constitution is the ability to select one's, life mate. This situation demonstrates that the consent of the family is not necessary if two adults agree to get married. From this case, we also learn that no investigating officer or other police official has the ability to compel us to provide a statement at a certain police station. This decision is praiseworthy. This short ruling addresses a problem that many young people in today's world encounter, and it serves as a lifeline for young people or those who pick their life partner without the consent of their families.
References:
1) Asokan K. M. & Ors. v. Shafin Jahan (2018) 16 SCC 408.
2) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lata Singh (2006) 5 SCC 475
3) Union of India v. K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) 10 SCC 1.
4) The Supreme Court of India v. Shakti Vahini (2018) 7 SCC 192.
5) State of Bihar v. Asha Ranjan, 2017 SCC 497.