Supreme Court Upholds Individual Choice in Marriage: Laxmibai Chandaragi vs. State of Karnataka (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: February 08, 2021

Citation: [Not available in the provided text]

Judges: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Hrishikesh Roy.

Can a couple’s decision to marry be overridden by family or community objections? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this vital question, reaffirming the primacy of individual choice in marriage. This case arose from a situation where a young couple faced threats and harassment after marrying against the wishes of the woman’s family. The Court’s ruling underscores the importance of personal autonomy and dignity in marital decisions, especially in a changing social landscape.

Case Background

On October 14, 2020, Mr. Basappa Chandaragi filed a complaint with the Murgod Police Station in Belagavi District, Karnataka, reporting that his daughter, Ms. Laxmibai Chandaragi (petitioner No. 1), was missing. The police registered a missing person’s case (FIR No. 226/2020) and began investigations. Call details revealed that Ms. Laxmibai was in contact with Mr. Santosh Singh Yadav (petitioner No. 2). The investigation further revealed that Ms. Laxmibai and Mr. Santosh had travelled from Hubli to Bangalore, then to Delhi, where they married. Ms. Laxmibai informed her parents of the marriage via WhatsApp on October 15, 2020, sending them the marriage certificate.

Despite being informed of the marriage, the Investigating Officer (IO) insisted that Ms. Laxmibai appear at the Murgod police station to record her statement. Ms. Laxmibai, fearing threats from her family, wrote to the IO explaining her situation and her inability to visit the police station. The IO also allegedly threatened to register a case of kidnapping against Mr. Santosh if Ms. Laxmibai did not comply. This led the couple to file a writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, citing a jurisdictional issue and seeking protection from harassment.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioners initially approached the Allahabad High Court on October 19, 2020, seeking protection for themselves and their family members. However, their matter could not be taken up for urgent hearing even after a month. Subsequently, they filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, citing jurisdictional issues and seeking protection from harassment.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of individual autonomy and the right to choose one’s life partner, which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court referred to the following legal provisions and principles:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which the Court interpreted to include the right to marry a person of one’s choice.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The petitioners argued that the Investigating Officer (IO) from Karnataka was harassing them despite knowing that they were married and residing in Uttar Pradesh. They contended that the IO was pressuring Ms. Laxmibai to return to Karnataka to record her statement, threatening to file a false case against Mr. Santosh.
• They emphasized that they are both educated adults who have willingly entered into marriage and that their choice should be respected.
• They submitted that the police should not interfere in their personal lives and that the insistence on Ms. Laxmibai’s physical presence at the police station was unnecessary and intimidating.
• The petitioners highlighted the duality of jurisdiction, as Ms. Laxmibai was from Karnataka, but was now residing with her husband in Uttar Pradesh.
• They sought protection from threats from Ms. Laxmibai’s family members.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The State of Karnataka, in its counter-affidavit, stated that the IO had not threatened the petitioners.
• The State argued that the IO was only following due procedure by trying to close the missing person’s case and wanted to record Ms. Laxmibai’s statement to do so.
• The State submitted that the IO’s actions were not intended to harass the petitioners but were merely aimed at completing the investigation.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the Court was:

• Whether the actions of the Investigating Officer (IO) were justified in the context of the petitioners’ marriage and their expressed concerns for safety.
• Whether the consent of the family is required for the marriage of two consenting adults.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192: The Court cited this case to emphasize that the consent of the family or the community is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock.
• Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar (2017) 4 SCC 397: This case was used to highlight that the choice of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity and cannot succumb to the concept of “class honour” or “group thinking.”
• Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K M & Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 408: The Court noted that this case recognized that the right to marry a person of choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
• Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 475: This case was cited in Shafin Jahan.
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1: The Court referred to this nine-judge bench judgment to underscore that the autonomy of an individual, including in relation to family and marriage, is integral to the dignity of the individual.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: The Court interpreted this article to include the right to marry a person of one’s choice as part of the right to life and personal liberty.

Authority Usage Table:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192* to emphasize that the consent of the family or the community is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter into a wedlock.
• The Court followed Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar (2017) 4 SCC 397* to highlight that the choice of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity and cannot succumb to the concept of “class honour” or “group thinking.”
• The Court followed Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K M & Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 408* to recognize that the right to marry a person of choice is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
• The Court referred to Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 475*, which was cited in Shafin Jahan.
• The Court followed Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1* to underscore that the autonomy of an individual, including in relation to family and marriage, is integral to the dignity of the individual.
• The Court interpreted Article 21 of the Constitution of India to include the right to marry a person of one’s choice as part of the right to life and personal liberty.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Individual Autonomy and Choice: The Court emphasized that the choice of an individual in matters of marriage is paramount. The right to choose one’s life partner is an integral part of personal liberty and dignity.
• Changing Social Norms: The Court acknowledged that society is evolving, with younger generations increasingly choosing their life partners, often departing from traditional norms of caste and community.
• Dignity and Privacy: The Court underscored that the intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable. The autonomy of an individual in relation to family and marriage is integral to their dignity.
• Conduct of the Investigating Officer: The Court strongly disapproved of the IO’s conduct, noting that he had threatened the petitioners instead of responsibly closing the complaint.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, but rejected them in favor of upholding individual autonomy and dignity. The Court emphasized that the police should not interfere in the personal lives of consenting adults.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The Investigating Officer’s conduct was not justified.
• The consent of the family is not necessary for a valid marriage between two consenting adults.
• The right to marry a person of one’s choice is an integral part of personal liberty and dignity.

The Court quoted Dr. B.R. Ambedkar:

“I am convinced that the real remedy is inter-marriage. Fusion of blood can alone create the feeling of being kith and kin, and unless this feeling of kinship, of being kindred, becomes paramount, the separatist feeling—the feeling of being aliens—created by Caste will not vanish. Where society is already well-knit by other ties, marriage is an ordinary incident of life. But where society is cut asunder, marriage as a binding force becomes a matter of urgent necessity. The real remedy for breaking caste is inter-marriage. Nothing else will serve as the solvent of caste.”

Key Takeaways

Practical implications of this judgment include:

• The consent of family or community is not required for a valid marriage between two consenting adults.
• Police authorities should not interfere in the personal lives of consenting adults.
• Investigating officers must act responsibly and not harass individuals under the guise of investigation.
• The right to marry a person of one’s choice is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

This judgment reinforces the importance of individual autonomy and dignity in marital decisions, setting a precedent for future cases involving similar issues.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the police authorities to:

• Counsel the current Investigating Officers (IOs).
• Devise a training program to deal with such cases for the benefit of the police personnel.
• Lay down guidelines on how to handle such socially sensitive cases within the next eight weeks.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the consent of the family or community is not necessary for a valid marriage between two consenting adults. This decision reinforces the principle of individual autonomy and dignity in marital decisions. The Court has clarified that the right to marry a person of one’s choice is an integral part of personal liberty and is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This decision does not change the previous positions of law but reinforces the existing position.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Laxmibai Chandaragi vs. State of Karnataka reaffirms the importance of individual choice and dignity in marriage. The Court strongly deprecated the conduct of the Investigating Officer and quashed the FIR, emphasizing that the consent of the family or community is not necessary for a valid marriage between two consenting adults. This decision underscores the need for police authorities to act responsibly and for society to respect the autonomy of individuals in matters of marriage.