Disposed

Eram Bano D/O Mo. Murtaja, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Mar 2023CRLW/434/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal writ petition filed under Article 226 seeking protection of life and liberty for individuals in a live-in relationship. The court held that personal liberty cannot be infringed and directed the State to ensure protection of the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Direction to State respondents to ensure protection of petitioners' personal life and liberty; petition and stay application disposed.

Eram Bano D/O Mo. Murtaja, Vs State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 434/2023

¶3

Eram Bano D/o Mo. Murtaja, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of 20, Mohalla Khanjada, Post Machhli Shahar, Machhli Shahar, Jaunpur, Uttarpradesh, Presently Resident Of 2-H, Hassanpura, Simawato Ki Dhani, Jaipur (Raj).

¶4

Mo. Saeed Son Of Mo. Shabbir, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of 2-H, Hassanpura, Simawato Ki Dhani, Jaipur (Raj).

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

The Commissioner Of Police, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur City (West), Jaipur (Raj).

¶10

Sho Police Station Sadar Jaipur City (West), Jaipur.

¶11

Mohammad Murtaja Son Of Liyakat Ali, Resident Of 20, Mohalla Khanjada, Post Machhli Shahar, Machhli Shahar, Jaunpur, Uttarpradesh,

¶12

Salma W/o Mohammad Murtaja, Resident Of 20, Mohalla Khanjada, Post Machhli Shahar, Machhli Shahar, Jaunpur, Uttarpradesh,

¶13

Raaj Son Of Mohammad Murtaja, Resident Of 20, Mohalla Khanjada, Post Machhli Shahar, Machhli Shahar, Jaunpur, Uttarpradesh,

¶14

Sazid Son Of Mohammad Murtaja, Resident Of 20, Mohalla Khanjada, Post Machhli Shahar, Machhli Shahar, Jaunpur, Uttarpradesh,

¶15

Ruksar W/o Mohammad Firoz, Resident Of Bhadoi, Uttar Pradesh.

¶16

Nagma W/o Riyaz, Resident Of Near Killa, Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh.

¶17

Uzma W/o Salman, Resident Of Chhoti Nariya, Banaras, Uttar Pradesh.

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

(2 of 4) [CRLW-434/2023]

¶20

For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, Dy. GA

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR Order

¶22

03/03/2023

¶23

No one appears for the petitioners.

¶24

Heard learned Dy. GA for the State.

¶25

This criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India for protection to life and personal liberty of the petitioners.

¶26

The petitioners are major and are in live-in-relationship. The petitioners have approached this court for protection of their life and liberty as private respondents are not approving and recognizing their relationship.

¶27

The law is well settled that privacy and liberty of individuals cannot be infringed by taking the law in one’s hands. If there is allegation of violation of law by the aggrieved person then legal recourse should be adopted and recourse can never be at the whim of anyone.

¶28

In Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1, The Supreme Court said as follows:-

¶29

“The right to privacy enables an individual to exercise his or her autonomy, away from the glare of societal expectations. The realisation of the human personality is dependent on the autonomy of an individual. In a liberal democracy, recognition of the individual as an autonomous person is an acknowledgment of the State’s respect for the capacity of the individual to make independent choices. The right to privacy may be construed to signify that not only are

¶30

[CRLW-434/2023]

¶31

(3 of 4)

¶32

certain acts no longer immoral, but that there also exists an affirmative moral right to do them.”

¶33

7. In Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K.M. 2018 (16) SCC 368, The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that “ the social values and morals have their space but they are not above the constitutionally guaranteed freedom. The said freedom is both a constitutional and a human right. Deprivation of that freedom which is ingrained in choice on the plea of faith is impermissible.

¶34

8. In Navtej Singh Johar (supra) The Hon’ble Supreme Court further said :-

¶35

“131. The duty of the constitutional courts is to adjudge the validity of law on wellestablished principles, namely, legislative competence or violations of fundamental rights or of any other constitutional provisions. At the same time, it is expected from the courts as the final arbiter of the Constitution to uphold the cherished principles of the Constitution and not to be remotely guided by majoritarian view or popular perception. The Court has to be guided by the conception of constitutional morality and not by the societal morality. In a constitutional democracy like ours where the rule of law prevails, must not be allowed to be trampled by obscure notions of social morality which have no legal tenability. The concept of constitutional morality would serve as an aid for the Court to arrive at a just decision which would be in consonance with the constitutional rights of the citizens, howsoever small that fragment of the populace may be. The idea of number, in this

¶36

(4 of 4)

¶37

[CRLW-434/2023]

¶38

context, is meaningless; like zero on the left side of any number. 133. In this regard, we have to telescopically analyse social morality vis-a-vis constitutional morality. It needs no special emphasis to state that whenever the constitutional courts come across a situation of transgression or dereliction in the sphere of fundamental rights, which are also the basic human rights of a section, howsoever small part of the society, then it is for the constitutional courts to ensure, with the aid of judicial engagement and creativity, that constitutional morality prevails over social morality.”

¶39

Considering the constitutional right of the petitioners, let the State respondents ensure protection of the personal life and liberty of the petitioners.

¶40

With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of.

¶41

Stay application also stands disposed of.

¶42

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

¶43

Sunita/5

Eram Bano D/O Mo. Murtaja, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eram Bano D/O Mo. Murtaja, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Jangid Son of Shri Bhajanlal Jangid, Vs State of Rajasthan

Tikam Khnadelwal S/O Shri Mohan Khandelwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Padam S/O Shri Gheesaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Udaieya S/O Shri Ram Dayal Udaieya, Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Kumar Sharma S/O Mangilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sonu Kanwar D/O Sh. Jeevan Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan