Disposed

Manisha Nagar D/O Bhimraj Nagar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 Mar 2023CRLW/450/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal writ petition filed by adults in a live-in relationship seeking protection of their life and personal liberty against rejection of their relationship by private respondents, directing the State to ensure their protection.

What did the court decide?

The State respondents were directed to ensure protection to the personal life and liberty of the petitioners.

Manisha Nagar D/O Bhimraj Nagar Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/004746]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 450/2023

¶4

Manisha Nagar D/o Bhimraj Nagar, Aged About 21 Years, R/o 21, Village Sadrod, Tehsil Atru District Baran (Raj.)

¶5

Manmohan Meena Son Of Shri Kunj Bihari Meena, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Meena Basti, Village Ummed Ganj, Post Khairali, District Baran (Raj.)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

Superintendent Of Police, Baran.

¶10

S.h.o., Police Station Atru, District Baran.

¶11

Dulichand Nagar Son Of Shri Murlidhar Nagar, R/o Atru, Tehsil And P.s. Atru District Baran (Raj.)

¶12

Arjun Nagar Son Of Shri Murlidhar Nagar, R/o Atru, Tehsil And P.s. Atru District Baran (Raj.)

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)

¶15

: Mr. Jiya Ur Rahman : Mr. Atul Sharma, Dy. GA

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR Order

¶17

24/03/2023

¶18

Heard the parties.

¶19

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.

¶20

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 accepting and recognizing their relationship.

(2 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/004746]

[CRLW-450/2023]

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

6. 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.

¶28

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

¶29

“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

[2023/RJJP/004746]

[CRLW-450/2023]

(3 of 4)

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.

¶34

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 context, is meaningless; like zero on the left side of any number.

¶35

133. In this regard, we have to telescopically analyse social morality visa-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.”

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/004746]

[CRLW-450/2023]

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

¶40

With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of.

¶41

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

¶42

Sunita/4

Manisha Nagar D/O Bhimraj Nagar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha Nagar D/O Bhimraj Nagar 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

Sayar Singh S/O Shri Hanuman Singh Shekhawat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Chandra Prakash Rawat S/O Shri Madan Lal Rawat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Beena Devi W/O Ghanshyam Vs State of Rajasthan

Balwant S/O Shri Shyoram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Shivlal Prajapat Son of Bhore Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Radha Prajapat D/O Shri Prahlad Prajata, W/O Balram Prajapat, Vs State of Rajasthan