The recent order by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in a writ petition filed by an inter-faith couple seeking protection against harassment raises serious concerns about the protection of fundamental rights and the impartiality of the judiciary.
The High Court, instead of focusing on the alleged violation of the couple’s fundamental rights, took a moral stance, referring to the “fabric of Indian family life”[1] without clarifying its origin. This concept seems vague and subjective, as India is a diverse country with various religions and customs.
The Court cited Supreme Court judgments on live-in relationships but misinterpreted them as promoting such relationships, leading to its refusal to grant relief. However, the Supreme Court’s intention was to acknowledge the reality of modern relationships without undermining the institution of marriage.
Furthermore, the High Court’s reliance on Muslim law from the Quran and Sunnah to discourage premarital sex was inappropriate and potentially intimidating. It is not the Court’s role to impose religious beliefs on individuals seeking protection of their rights.[2]
The Court’s request for witnesses from the neighbourhood to certify the nature of the couple’s relationship was impractical and unnecessary, especially since the woman had not sought any relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
The Court also missed the opportunity to follow the Supreme Court’s directive to protect inter-caste or inter-religious couples from harassment. Instead, it suggested that the couple consider ending their relationship to avoid legal hassles.
The order disregarded the couple’s genuine fear and apprehension in a society where honour killings and regressive practices still exist. It also goes against the spirit of inclusiveness and diversity that modern India celebrates.
In a progressive country like India, where laws have decriminalized adultery, recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right, and decriminalized same-sex relationships[3], the High Court’s order appears to be regressive and backward.
The Court’s decision to differentiate between laws based on religious affiliations, using the Adalat system of the 19th century, is not in line with the principles of a secular and democratic nation.
In conclusion, the High Court’s order misses the mark on protecting the couple’s fundamental rights and appears to be influenced by personal beliefs rather than enforcing the rule of law[4]. Such rulings undermine the progress made by progressive laws and threaten modern India’s inclusive and diverse fabric. The judiciary must uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and ensure that all individuals are treated fairly and impartially, regardless of their religious or cultural background.
WRITTEN BY- SWATI SUMAN, COLLEGE NAME – MODY UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, RAJASTHAN, SEMESTER- 9TH SEMESTER AN INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA
[1] https://www.barandbench.com/columns/law-the-guiding-principle-for-the-courts-not-the-quran-or-hadees
[3] https://www.barandbench.com/columns/law-the-guiding-principle-for-the-courts-not-the-quran-or-hadees
[4] https://www.barandbench.com/columns/law-the-guiding-principle-for-the-courts-not-the-quran-or-hadees
0 Comments