WP(C)/3848/2026 of SAJIBUL ISLAM AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS on 30 July 2026

ORDER

31.07.2026

Heard Mr. A.K. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P.K. Medhi, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for all the respondents.

2. The two petitioners claim themselves to be major. The petitioner no. 1 is a private job holder and the petitioner no. 2 is a Government employee. According to the petitioners, they got married, out of their free-will and personal choice, on 20.08.2021 by getting their marriage registered under Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. It is stated that though they were legally married since 20.08.2021, they could not live normal conjugal life due to severe oppositions from their family members, societal pressure, etc.

3. In this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought for a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent authorities to provide protection to them. Towards seeking such direction, the petitioners have stated that despite oppositions, societal pressure, etc., they have now decided to start their conjugal life against wishes of their family members. As they have started living together, they are in receipt of threats from various quarters including their family members. Left with no option, they filed a Representation before the respondent no. 2 on 14.07.2026 wherein they highlighted about the physical threats they have been facing, after the decision they had taken to start their conjugal life living as a couple.

4. Mr. Talukdar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has admitted the position that once a person becomes major, he/she can marry according to his/her wishes as it is a matter of personal choice. It is true that in cases of inter-religious marriage, there can be oppositions from family members or others. But seeking such a blanket direction, as sought for by the petitioners in the instant writ petition, there must be necessary foundational facts. In the case in hand, there is no such specific instance has been highlighted. The petitioners are found to have made bald and general allegations in the writ petition. It is not the case of the petitioners that any one of them has approached the jurisdictional Police Station naming the persons making any threat or putting any pressure on them or from whom the petitioners are having threat perception.

5. In this connection, it is apposite to refer to the following observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh vs. State of Utter Pradesh, [2006] 5 SCC 475, :-

17. […..]. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut-off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration / police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple is not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law.

6. In Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India [UOI] and others, [2018] 7 SCC 192, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that 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.

7. Though the petitioners had submitted a Representation before the respondent no. 2 on 13.07.2026, in the said Representation, the petitioner did not make any reference to any specific incident regarding physical threats, intimidation, etc., or naming any individual either from their family members or from any other quarter. It is not the case of the petitioners that they had, at any earlier point of time, approached the jurisdictional Police Station seeking redressal of their grievances regarding physical threats to their lives and liberty.

8. In view of the above obtaining fact situation, the direction as sought for in this writ petition which is in the form of a blanket direction, is not called for. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that if the petitioners face any physical threat, intimidation, etc. from their family members or anyone acting at the behest of their family members or any other quarter, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the respondent no. 4 by filing application at first, and if the respondent no. 4 does not take any affirmative action in time, then to the respondent no. 3. Upon receipt of application, if filed, the said authorities shall examine the matter and if they find any substance in the application, the said authorities shall act in accordance with law to extend necessary protection to lives and liberty of the petitioners. JUDGE Comparing Assistant