1 CGHC010304732026 2026:CGHC:36747-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 479 of 2026 1 - Sajeeya Firdos D/o Shri Sheikh Samsher Ali, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Patnam Para, Ward No.5, Police Station Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh -494111 2 - Shri Chandrashekhar Mitra, S/o Shri L.K. Mitra, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Shiv Mandir Road, Near Highway Channel, Ambedkar Ward, Jagdalpur, Police Station City Kotwali, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh - 494001. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent of Police, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Superintendent of Police, District Bastar, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Station House Officer, Police Station Sukma, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Station House Officer, Police Station Bodhghat, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.08.24 11:13:48 +0530 2 7 - Shri Shekh Samsher Ali S/o Suleman Ali, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Patnam Para, Ward No. 5, Sukma, District Sukma (C.G.) 8 - L.K. Mitra S/o R/o Shiv Mandir Road, Near Highway Channel, Ambedkar Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Akhand Pratap Pandey, Advocate. For State-Respondents : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 18.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Akhand Pratap Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State-Respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos.2 to 6 to ensure immediate and adequate police protection to the life and personal liberty of the Petitioners from any threat, harassment or violence at the hands of Respondent Nos.7, 8 or any other person acting on their behalf. 10.2 Direct the respondent police authorities to ensure that no coercive action is taken against 3 the Petitioners on account of their voluntary decision to marry and to take prompt legal action against any person who threatens, intimidates or unlawfully interferes with their life, liberty and peaceful living. 10.3. Pass such other order(s), direction(s) or writ(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” And for this act of kindness, the petitioners shall, as in duty bound, ever pray.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Petitioner No.1, Ms. Sajeeya Firdos, aged about 24 years, and Petitioner No.2, Shri Chandrashekhar Mitra, aged about 31 years, are both majors and competent to marry under law. The petitioners were originally residing in the same locality at Sukma and have known each other since their childhood. It is submitted that over the years, the petitioners developed affection and mutual understanding and, in the year 2023, mutually decided to solemnize their marriage out of their own free will and volition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that when the petitioners disclosed their decision to their respective family members, both families strongly opposed the proposed marriage solely on account of the difference in religion and their orthodox social beliefs. It is submitted that when Petitioner No.1 informed 4 her family members regarding her decision to marry Petitioner No.2, she was brutally assaulted, physically abused and threatened with serious consequences with a view to compel her to abandon her decision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that, apprehending danger to her life and liberty, Petitioner No.1 voluntarily left her parental home. Prior thereto, she submitted a written declaration dated 03.07.2026 before the Station House Officer, Police Station Sukma, specifically stating that she was leaving her home of her own free will and without any pressure, coercion or undue influence from any person. She also requested the police authorities not to register any false missing report or kidnapping case against any person, particularly Petitioner No.2. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that the petitioners are apprehending imminent threat to their life and personal liberty and have already submitted detailed representations before the Superintendent of Police, Sukma and the Superintendent of Police, Bastar at Jagdalpur, requesting immediate police protection and appropriate preventive action against any unlawful interference by their respective family members. However, despite receipt of the said representations, no effective protection has been provided to the petitioners till date, compelling them to approach this Court for exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5 7. Learned State counsel would submit that the allegations made by the petitioners are general in nature and that the petitioners have not disclosed any specific incident constituting a cognizable offence requiring interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the police authorities shall take appropriate action in accordance with law upon receipt of any specific complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. From the material placed on record, it is apparent that both the petitioners are majors and have expressed their intention to marry each other out of their own free will and consent. The petitioners have specifically pleaded that their respective families have opposed to their proposed marriage on account of the difference in religion and that Petitioner No.1 was subjected to physical assault and threats when she expressed her intention to marry Petitioner No.2. The written declaration dated 03.07.2026 submitted by Petitioner No.1 before the concerned police station also indicates that she voluntarily left her parental home and did not desire any false criminal case to be registered against Petitioner No.2. 10. The right of two consenting adults to marry a person of their choice is an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. 6 State of U.P. and Another (2006) 5 SCC 475, wherein it has been held that inter-caste or inter-faith marriages are in the national interest and such couples are entitled to protection from threats and harassment. In para 17, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “17. The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when We have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, a inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely 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 of t 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 d by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law.” 7 11. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that merely because the proposed marriage of the petitioners, who are major, is opposed by their family members on the ground of difference in religion or social beliefs, such opposition cannot furnish any lawful justification for threatening, assaulting, confining or otherwise interfering with the life and personal liberty of two consenting adults. The choice of a life partner is a matter falling within the personal autonomy of the individual, subject of course to the requirements of law. 12. Having regard to the apprehension expressed by the petitioners and the material placed on record, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the concerned respondent police authorities, particularly the Superintendent of Police, Sukma and the Superintendent of Police, Bastar at Jagdalpur, to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and personal liberty of the petitioners. In the event the petitioners approach the concerned police authorities with any complaint regarding threat, intimidation, assault, unlawful confinement or any other interference with their life and liberty, the same shall be promptly examined and appropriate preventive and legal action shall be taken strictly in accordance with law. 13. It is further directed that the private respondents and any person acting on their behalf shall not take law into their own hands or interfere with the peaceful life and personal liberty of the petitioners merely on account of their decision to marry each 8 other. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil