Lata Singh v. State of U.P.

In a progressive constitutional ruling delivered by Justice Markandey Katju, the Supreme Court held that an adult major has the untrammeled fundamental right to marry anyone of their choice, irrespective of caste, community, or religion. The Court denounced the archaic caste system and 'honour killings' as barbaric acts of feudal violence. The Court directed state administrations and police forces throughout the country to provide immediate protection to inter-caste and inter-religious couples, and quashed criminal prosecutions initiated by disgruntled parents as malicious abuses of judicial process.

• Absolute Right to Marry: The Court established that once a boy and a girl reach majority, no family member or caste panchayat has any legal authority to prevent their marriage.
• Condemnation of Honour Killings: Declared so-called 'honour killings' to be cold-blooded murders that must be dealt with by the harshest criminal sanctions.
• Quashing Frivolous Kidnapping FIRs: Quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 366 and 368 IPC lodged by angry parents against consensual adult spouses.
• Nationwide Directions for Police Protection: Mandated that police and district administrations must protect inter-caste couples from violent threats or harassment.
• Elimination of Caste Barriers: Affirmed that inter-caste marriages are in national interest and essential for breaking feudal social stratifications.

The petitioner, Lata Singh, was an educated adult Hindu woman who, of her own free will, left her home and married Brahma Nand Gupta, a person belonging to another caste, at Arya Samaj Mandir, Delhi in November 2000.

Enraged by the inter-caste marriage, the petitioner's brothers lodged an FIR at Police Station Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, alleging that the petitioner was abducted and kidnapped by her husband and his relatives under Sections 366 and 368 IPC.

The police arrested the husband's brothers and relatives, who were subjected to brutal custodial treatment and incarceration. The petitioner went into hiding due to mortal threats issued by her brothers and caste groups.

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking the quashing of the malicious criminal proceedings pending against her husband's family and demanding state police protection.

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 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 are not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and anyone who gives such threats or commits acts of violence must be dealt with strictly in accordance with law by instituting criminal proceedings. There is nothing in law which prohibits inter-caste or inter-religious marriages. In fact, such marriages are in the national interest as they destroy the caste system to which this country has been shackled for centuries. The criminal proceedings initiated against the husband and his relatives under Sections 366 and 368 IPC are nothing but an abuse of the process of the court and a weapon of harassment. Since the petitioner was a major and entered into the marriage out of her own free will, no offence of kidnapping or abduction could possibly be made out. The criminal proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow are accordingly quashed.

• Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (Hadiya Case) (2018) 16 SCC 368: 3-Judge Bench reaffirmed Lata Singh holding that choice of partner is an inviolable constitutional liberty.
• Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192: Laid down exhaustive national guidelines to prevent honour crimes and curb unlawful Khap Panchayats.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 1 SCC 1: Quoted Lata Singh in affirming the constitutional right of individual self-determination.