High Court Bench at Jaipur disposed of a writ petition filed by a couple to protect their life and liberty under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, urging State respondents to shield them from private interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 485/2023
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Petitioners-present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, Dy. GA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR Order
20/03/2023
[CRLW-485/2023]
(2 of 4)
“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.”
6. In Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K.M. 2018 (16) SCC 368, The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that “ the social values and morals
[CRLW-485/2023]
(3 of 4)
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.
7. In Navtej Singh Johar (supra) The Hon’ble Supreme Court further said :-
“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 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
(4 of 4)
[CRLW-485/2023]
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.”
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
Sunita/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the State is obligated to ensure protection of the life and personal liberty of petitioners in a live-in relationship against private respondents.
Whether constitutional morality prevails over social morality in protecting individual autonomy in personal choices.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Navtej Singh JoharReferred¶25
Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Shafin JahanReferred¶26
Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K.M. 2018 (16) SCC 368 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nisha Kumari Bairwa
Mahimanand Sharma
The State Of Rajasthan
The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan
The Commissioner Of Police
The Station House Officer, Police Station Kanota
BIRENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
