The Supreme Court on Friday refused to pass an order granting sanctity to an inter-caste couple in a live-in relationship, who wished to get married against the wishes of their parents and had sought protection from the state. The Court disposed of the petition granting liberty to the petitioners to submit their representation to the Superintendent of Police for protection against any apprehension or threat.
The bench comprising Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Ajay Rastogi observed, “Both of you want to solemnise inter-caste marriage against the wishes of your parents. And you seek the Court’s shoulder or umbrella to give sanctity to it; therefore, we are not inclined to pass any such order.”
The bench ordered that, “We have gone through the representation. We dispose the petitions granting liberty to the petitioners to supplement their representations to the Superintendent of Police. Needless to state that since it concerns life and liberty, the Superintendent of Police is required to act expeditiously in accordance with law, including the grant of any protection to the petitioners in view of the apprehensions/ threats, uninfluenced by the observations of the High Court.”
The order came in the plea filed by Advocate Abhimanyu Tewari. The grounds which were taken in his plea, inter-alia, are the following:-
- On the aspect of social morality the Supreme Court while dealing with the constitutional validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code in Navtej Johar vs. Union of India, has held that obscure notions of social morality, which have no force of law, cannot trample constitutional rights.
- It also urges that the Supreme Court has categorically upheld the right of a person to marry a person of their choice and the duty of the State to grant protection to couples who face threats in Lata Singh Vs. State of UP.
- Morality and social acceptability cannot override the constitutional right to autonomy granted to the Petitioner by virtue of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. And they cannot be denied protection on the ground that live-in relationships are morally or socially unacceptable.
It is pertinent to mention here that the Punjab and Haryana High Court had passed two orders on May 11 and 12, denying protection to two couples, on the ground that live-in relationships are not socially acceptable.
Read Also: Delhi HC asks amicus to ensure rail accident amputee gets to meet Rail Minister
Subsequently, the High Court had last week referred to a larger bench, the question as to “whether the Court is required to grant protection to two persons living together, without examining their marital status and the other circumstances of that case?” The Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal also added, “If the answer to the above is in the negative, what are the circumstances in which the Court can deny them protection?” The single bench of High Court referred the matter to a larger bench in view of the fact that various benches of the Court have formed different opinions on the matter concerned, which, according to the court, cannot be easily reconciled.