Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Naziya Ansari & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors., has held that no one can impose restrictions on an adult from going anywhere or staying with a person of his/her choice, or solemnizing marriage according to his/her will as this is a right which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

What was the Background of Naziya Ansari & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the first petitioner is an adult woman aged about 21 years. It is alleged that the second petitioner is an adult man. They have married according to their freewill and wish.
• She married the second petitioner on 17^th April 2024 according to Muslim rites regarding which there is a marriage certificate issued by the Telangana State Waqf Board dated 25^th April 2024.
• Aggrieved with her decision to marry the second petitioner, the woman's uncle lodged an FIR against her husband.
• Thereafter, the Police not only arrested her husband but also took the woman into custody and handed her over to her uncle.
• When the police produced the woman before the Magistrate to get her statement recorded, she categorically said that she had married second petitioner of her own choice and that her husband had been implicated in the case falsely.
• She also expressed an apprehension that she would be done to death as her uncle had been threatening her; despite this, the concerned magistrate directed her to send her to her uncle's home.
• Challenging the FIR, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court.
• Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the impugned FIR.
• The Court also directed the concerned officers to ensure that her uncle or any other family member does not harm her in any manner.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench comprising Justices J.J. Munir and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed that both the petitioners are major and have a right to live together or solemnize marriage. Hence, the woman's uncle had no right to lodge the impugned FIR, and therefore, all proceedings taken pursuant thereto were manifestly illegal.
• Even if the petitioners have not married each other, no one can restrain an adult from going anywhere that he/she likes, staying with a person of his/her choice, or solemnizing marriage according to his/her will or wish. This is a right which flows from Article 21 of the COI.

What is Article 21 of the COI?

About:

• Article 21 deals with the protection of life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
  • The right to life is not merely confined to animal existence or survival but also includes the right to live with human dignity and all those aspects of life which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth living.
• Article 21 secures two rights:
  • Right to life
  • Right to personal liberty
• This article is characterized as the procedural Magna Carta protective of life and liberty.
• This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike.
• The Supreme Court of India has described this right as the Heart of Fundamental Rights.
• This right has been provided against the State only.

Rights under Article 21:

• The rights that Article 21 covers are as follows:
  • Right to privacy
  • Right to go abroad
  • Right to shelter
  • Right against solitary confinement
  • Right to social justice and economic empowerment
  • Right against handcuffing
  • Right against custodial death
  • Right against delayed execution
  • Doctors’ assistance 10. Right against public hanging
  • Protection of cultural heritage
  • Right to pollution-free water and air
  • Right of every child to a full development
  • Right to health and medical aid
  • Right to education
  • Protection of under-trials

Case Laws:

• In Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator (1981), Justice P. Bhagwati had said that Article 21 of the COI embodies a constitutional value of supreme importance in a democratic society
• In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1963), the Supreme Court held that by the term life, something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an armored leg or the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world.