In the case, of Karan and another vs State of Himachal Pradesh, the petitioners have invoked Article 21 of Right to life, through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The plea sought safety to the petitioners’ life and personal liberty after they married against their parent’s wishes.The Coram constituted of Mr Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, and Ms Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua.
Brief facts of the Case
The petitioners wished to get married to each other but the parents of both the respondents did not agree. The parents consider the marriage to be against their norms and rules as the marriage is apparently based on intercaste relations.
Due to the aforesaid situation, the petitioners married each other against their parent’s will. Further, the parents are against this marriage. So, the petitioners are fearful and have the apprehension that there may be a threat to their safety. Moreover, they speculate that their parents might try to annihilate their union. The petitioners claim that the respondents may administer actions that may hinder their liberty and also may be a threat to their lives.
Therefore, to protect their lives and personal liberty, the petitioners have reached the court. They have invoked Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners have pleaded the court for the protection of their right through a writ petition under Article 226 of the same. Through this petition, the petitioners seek protection by the court against their parents.
Arguments Before the Court
The petitioners believe that their parents are a threat to their marriage, lives and personal liberty. Thus, they demand the necessary actions to safeguard the same.
Court’s Observations
The court has observed that the prayers of the petitioners are legitimate. Thus, the fundamental right of the petitioners needs immediate attention and necessary directions. Further, the petitioners require protection from the police to save them from harassment by the respondents.
Judgement
Based on the aforementioned facts and situation, the court held that the petitioner indeed needs protection. Thus, the court ordered for police protection to safeguard their fundamental rights. It further ordered the police to assure that petitioners’ life and personal liberty does not incur any harm.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
