This case summary is written by Madhuri Pilania and has been further updated by Shefali Chitkara. This article provides a legal analysis of the landmark case of Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006). The author has tried to give a brief overview of the judgement, facts of the case, important issues raised, contentions made by the parties, and important points that were highlighted by the Court more clearly by referring to various judgements that followed the aforementioned judgement. Further, the author has tried to explore the aftermaths of the judgement, and the significance of the judgement. The author has also mentioned the judgements and the legal provisions in detail that were referred to by the Court while delivering the present judgement. 

Table of Contents

Introduction

The government bestows some rights upon its citizens as well as non-citizens. The citizens of the country are provided with some Fundamental Rights which are guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution and can be enforced under Article 32 of the Constitution. Along with it, citizens are also obliged to perform some Fundamental Duties as stated in Part IV- A of the Indian Constitution. 

When we speak about the right to life, the right to marry intrinsically becomes a right of choice as embodied under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In India, marriage is a sacred concept and the foundation of a civilised society. Once the marital relationship is formed, the law then steps in and binds the two parties with some rights and obligations. It is believed that, “people give up some of their individual liberty in exchange for some common security”. This is known as the “Theory of Social Contract”. Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau and John Locke are known to be proponents of the influential theory of the social contract, which says that human beings live in a society as per an agreement that establishes moral and political rules of behaviour. The fundamental question that this theory tries to answer is how can people be free and live together without getting influenced by the coercion of other people around them? According to Rousseau, this could be done by submitting the particular wills of an individual to the collective will of the society that is created through an agreement with others. 

Download Now

The right to marry is a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Although it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it has been inserted in Article 21 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by virtue of Article 32. It is also stated under the Human Rights Charter within the meaning of the right to start a family. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (UDHR) states that men and women have the right to marry and form a family. Further, Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 (ICCPR) also recognises the right to marry and form a family. 

The case of Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006) is one such case that talks about the right to marry and inter-caste marriage. 

The writ petition was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of Sessions Court and later the criminal proceedings were quashed.

Brief details of the case

Name of the case

Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Case Number

Writ Petition (Crl.) 208 of 2004

Date of judgement

7th July, 2006

Court

Supreme Court of India

Bench

Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Justice Markandey Katju

Type of the case

Writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Parties of the case

Petitioner

Lata Singh

Respondent

State of Uttar Pradesh

Represented by

Advocate for petitioner

Adv. Sakesh Kumar, Adv. Yogmaya Agnihotri and Adv. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal

Advocate for respondent

Adv. Reena Singh and Adv. Jatinder Kr. Bhatia

Equivalent citations

AIR 2006 SC 2522, 2006 SCC OnLine SC 682, (2006) 5 SCC 475

Referred laws and provisions 

Historical background

The case of Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh is a landmark judgement in the legal history of India. In this case, the Hon’ble Justices Ashok Bhan and Markandey Katju, allowed the writ petition under Article 32, filed by a woman named Lata Singh for enforcement of her right, which is to marry a person of her choice on her own will. The Supreme Court gave a decision in her favour and ordered police protection for her as well.

The case of Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. and Ors. (2018) is a landmark judgement by Hon’ble Justice D Y Chandrachud, popularly known as the “Hadiya case”. It has been a significant case for women’s right to marry the person of their choice in India. Hadiya was a Hindu woman married to a Muslim man. She converted her religion and changed her name to Islam. Hence, her parents filed a writ petition of Habeas Corpus before the High Court of Kerala under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. This marriage of Hadiya was challenged by her parents in the court of law. The High Court upheld her father’s right over her choice and gave her custody to her father despite the fact that she was 25 years old. 

The rights of women in India are still subject to ignorance, as the majority of people overlook women’s right to choose and consent when it comes to marriage. Article 21 protects the right of men and women of marriageable age to marry. On 8th March 2018, the learned judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, considering the arguments advanced on both sides, held that the High Court was wrong in its decision while issuing the writ for Habeas Corpus. In the facts, it is stated that the appellant admitted her marriage on 27th November 2017 before appearing in court. The judgement and the order passed by the High Court were set aside and the appeal was allowed.

The Supreme Court upheld Hadiya’s marriage to Shafin Jahan and delivered its judgement in favour of Hadiya, and hence the decision of the High Court was declared invalid. On 9th April 2018, it passed the judgement, explaining the reasoning behind its decision. It basically dealt with the freedom to choose religion and one’s choice of life partner. 

Article 32 of the constitution provides for constitutional remedies, which means that a person has a right to move to Supreme Court and High Court under Article 226 to get one’s fundamental rights protected.

The present case of Lata Singh v. State of UP (2006), the facts of which have been discussed in detail below brings out how in the name of caste, honour killing is done and women are deprived of their fundamental right to marry as per their choice, as what all traumas individuals have to go through if one marries outside their caste. This case has brought about a lot of changes by not only upholding the fundamental rights but widening the scope of Article 21 and it also acted as a precedent in many landmark cases that came before the Apex Court. Let us now look at the facts of this case which helped us in bringing the landmark and remarkable judgement. 

Facts of Lata Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006)

The petitioner was a young woman who was a graduate. She was pursuing her masters in Hindi from Lucknow University at that time. She was about twenty seven years old. She started living with her brother Ajay Pratap Singh at the LDA colony due to the sudden death of her parents. She did her intermediate in 1997 and completed her graduation in 2000 while living with her brother. It was alleged by the petitioner that on 2nd November 2000, she left her brother’s house of her own free will and got married at Arya Samaj Mandir, Delhi, to Bramha Nand Gupta (hereinafter referred to as “husband”) and they had a child out of the wedlock.

On 4th November 2000, the petitioner’s brother lodged a missing person’s report at the Sarojini Nagar Police Station, Lucknow. After the complaint had been lodged, the police arrested two sisters of Lata’s husband, along with the husband of one of the sisters and the cousin of Lata’s husband, namely, Mamta Gupta, Sangita Gupta, Rakesh Gupta and Kallu Gupta. Mamta was arrested and detained in jail with her one-month old child. 

It is further alleged that the three brothers of the petitioner, namely, Ajay Pratap Singh, Shashi Pratap Singh and Anand Pratap Singh, were furious because the petitioner had an inter-caste marriage. They went to the petitioner’s husband’s paternal residence and beat up her husband’s mother and uncle, threw the luggage, furniture, utensils and other things from the house and locked it with their lock. One brother of the petitioner’s husband was allegedly locked in a room by the petitioner’s brothers for four or five days without any meal or water. Her brothers also cut away the crops that were grown in the field of the petitioner’s husband and sold them in the market without their permission. Later, they took physical possession of that agricultural field. A false police complaint was lodged against the husband and his relatives alleging kidnapping of the petitioner at Sarojini Nagar Police Station in Lucknow due to which his relatives were arrested and detained in the Lucknow jail. The brothers of the petitioner also took possession of the shop of the petitioner’s husband, which was at Badan Singh Market, Rangpuri as “Gupta Helmet Shop”.

It was alleged that the petitioner’s brothers were threatening to kill her husband and his relatives and threatening to kidnap and kill her as well. The family members were afraid of going to Lucknow because of fear and violence by the petitioner’s brothers. It was also alleged that petitioner’s husband and relatives have been falsely framed by her brothers who were furious because of the inter-caste marriage of Lata with her husband, Bramha Nand Gupta.

The petitioner ran from pillar to pillar to save her husband and relatives from the harassment done by her brothers. She then approached the Rajasthan Women Commission, Jaipur in the apprehending danger to her and her husband’s life. Her statement was recorded by the Commission on 13th March, 2001 and it was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police. Subsequently, a letter was written by the President of the Rajasthan State Women Commission to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) requesting the commission and the Chief Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh to intervene in the case. 

A final report was submitted by the SHO, Police Station Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow to the Judicial Magistrate. The report mentioned that none of the accused persons committed any offence and later they were released on bail on 16th May 2001 by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow. After that, the investigating officer recorded Lata’s statement on 28th May, 2001 and provided armed security to her. The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded her statement under Section 164 of CrPC on 29th May 2001. Lata, the petitioner stated that she married Brahma Nand Gupta on her own will and under no coercion. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the committal order on 5th October 2001 even after her statement.

A protest petition was filed against the final report of the Police because the brothers of the petitioner had alleged that the petitioner was not mentally fit. However, she was medically examined and it was stated that she was not suffering from any type of mental illness.

The case was pending before the fast-track court of Lucknow and this court issued the non-bailable warrants against all four accused persons. Against this order, the accused persons filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, which got registered as Crl. Misc. No. 520 of 2003. The Lucknow High Court directed the accused persons to be present before the Sessions Judge, who would scrutinise whether they had committed any offence. This matter was still pending. The present writ petition was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, issuing the writ of certiorari or mandamus for quashing the order of the Sessions Judge passed against the accused persons under Sections 366 and 368 of the IPC. 

Issues raised before the court

The following issues were raised before the division bench of the Supreme Court:

  • Whether the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner under Article 32 for issuing the writ of certiorari/mandamus for quashing the order of Sessions Court under sections 366 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which was registered at Sarojini Nagar Police Station in Lucknow and pending in the Fast Track Court of Lucknow maintainable?
  • Question regarding the contravention of the provisions of law through inter-caste marriages.
  • Whether the right to choose whom to marry is a part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution?

Arguments of the parties

Petitioner

The following points of contentions were raised by the counsel for the petitioner:

  • It was contended that her brothers have assaulted and harassed her husband, his relatives and irreparably harmed the entire family property. 
  • They were threatened to be killed by her brothers. 
  • Her brothers have forcibly taken over their properties, fields and shops, and sold the crops in their fields. 
  • They also contended that the lives of the petitioner and her husband and their relatives were in danger and she even cannot visit Lucknow due to the apprehension of danger to her life and also the lives of her husband and their small child. 
  • That the petitioner is a major and of sound mind and the same has been proved by the medical examination. The petitioner married Brahma Nand Gupta on her own will and there was no force or coercion used for the same. 
  • That the brothers of the petitioners have lodged false complaints against her husband and his family.
  • That the police personnel did not take any action against the brothers of the petitioner and instead arrested and humiliated the family members of her husband.

Respondent

On the other side, the counsel for the respondent raised the following arguments to support their contentions:

  • It was alleged that the petitioner was mentally unfit and was not able to give a valid consent for the marriage.
  • There was an instigation on the part of her husband and his family members to marry him without anyone’s consent.
  • That the accused persons have kidnapped, instigated and compelled the petitioner to marry against her will and were liable for offences under Sections 366 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

Laws discussed in Lata Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006)

Constitution of India

Articles 32 and 226: The Constitution of India has provided six fundamental rights to the people that aim at protecting the interests of the public and society at large. They have also provided the right to constitutional remedies under Article 32 as a fundamental right and Article 226 as a constitutional right for the enforcement of our other fundamental rights. In Rashid Ahmad v. Municipal Board (1950), the Supreme Court held that in relation to Fundamental Rights, the availability of alternative remedy cannot be an absolute bar for the issue of writ though the fact may be taken into consideration. The petitioners were right in approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution since the accused persons, the brothers of the petitioner have violated her right to choose whom to marry under Article 21. The Supreme Court issued the writ of mandamus and correctly quashed the proceedings pending against the petitioner’s husband and his relatives. 

Article 21: It provides for the right to life and personal liberty to every person and has been widened by the Supreme Court in this case to include the right to choose whom to marry. It was already clarified that the right to life is not mere animal existence but means the right to live with human dignity. This was held in a number of cases including the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). The Supreme Court in this case held that there is a unique relationship between the provisions of Article 14, 19 & 21 and every law must pass the tests of the said provisions and these provisions are not mutually exclusive and are dependent on each other.

Article 19(1)(a): Article 19 talks about various freedoms which are granted to the citizens by the State out of which Article 19(1)(a) mentions freedom of speech and expression. It states that every citizen has a right to speak which also includes the right to remain silent and also to express their views but the same is restricted by Article 19(2) which puts few reasonable restrictions on the same. 

Article 51A(e): Part IV- A of the Indian Constitution contains Article 51A which talks about all the fundamental duties that were added by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, it also mentions one of the duties as a duty to promote harmony, and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic, regional and sectional diversities and to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.

Indian Majority Act, 1875

Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, provides for the age of majority, which is above 18 years. Any person over the age of 18 is considered a major and is free to decide and choose anyone to marry and no one, including their own parents can harass or threaten them for marrying someone against their will. The age of the petitioner, who was a female in this case, was above 18 years and she was a major at all times. The Supreme Court also upheld this fact and her right to marry anyone of her choice and with her consent.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 

In India, marriages are a sacrament and regulated by the personal laws of different religions. We have the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for governing marriages of Hindus. As per Section 5(iii) of the Act, the legal age to marry in India is 18 years for females and 21 years for males. 

Special Marriage Act, 1954

We also have the Special Marriage Act, 1954, which applies to all religions and also governs the inter-caste marriages across India. 

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code penalises the offence of kidnapping, abducting or inducing a woman to compel her marriage against her will or seducing her for illicit intercourse. Further, Section 368 punishes the offence wherein anyone, knowing that any person has been kidnapped or has been abducted, wrongfully conceals or confines such person. 

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 164 of the CrPC talks about the confessions and statements that can be recorded by any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate at the course of an investigation or at any time before the commencement of the inquiry or trial. Further, Section 482 of the CrPC grants the inherent powers to the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of process of law or to secure ends of justice. 

Judgement in Lata Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006)

Ratio Decidendi

The division bench, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Markandey Katju, while criticising the shocking state of affairs in this case, favoured the petitioners and allowed the writ petition. The warrants that were issued against the accused persons were also quashed and the police officials were directed to ensure that the husband and the relatives of the petitioner are not harassed or threatened at any point in time by the accused persons or anyone for their inter-caste marriage. 

The Court also directed that police protection must be provided to the petitioner and her in-laws because of the danger to their lives and that necessary action must be taken if someone is found threatening or harassing them.

Obiter Dicta

The Supreme Court observed that the social evil of the caste system is dividing the nation when unity is needed. Only inter-caste marriages can help society overcome the malpractice of the caste system and break the stigma attached to it. Every person who is a major has a right to marry a person of his own choice and will since India is a free and democratic nation. It also stated that there is no honour attached to killing someone in the name of inter-caste marriage, which is thus a barbaric and heinous offence of murder. The court finally proceeded with giving instructions to the administrative authorities to protect the couples who have undergone inter-caste marriage and take necessary actions against those who try to humiliate and harass these couples. 

Analysis of the judgement

It is rightly said that the caste system in many countries, especially India, have destroyed many marriages and relationships. Any person who has attained the age of marriage should have the right to marry a person of his/her own choice. When it comes to marriage between different castes and communities, it’s like a taboo for most of the people across the country. Marriages are considered not only a social institution in India, but also a sacrament. Caste marriages are the only way to completely eradicate caste barriers in India, whether urban or rural. They have to deal with threats and violence as happened in this case.   

The Supreme Court of India, by allowing the Writ Petition that was filed under Article 32, proved that the prevailing social evils like these are the roadblock for the growth of society and could be eradicated only when there is no abuse of power by the courts and the administrative machinery. The accused persons presented no such evidence and stated no relevant facts except for calling the petitioner a mentally unfit person, which was already proved not to be true. Also, in such cases, the statement of the woman stands as a strong proof of a valid marriage. Thus, the court rightly concluded that the family members of the husband were wrongly imprisoned by the police and set a wrong example against inter-caste marriages in India. 

Highlights and significance of the judgement

  • The court clarified that a person who is a major is free to marry or live with anyone they like and there is no bar to inter-caste marriages under any law, including the Hindu Marriage Act.
  • The court was distressed to note that the police had proceeded against the husband and family members of the husband and arrested them, instead of taking legal action against the brothers of the petitioners for the unlawful acts.
  • The court also noted that there were a lot of such cases involving harassment, violence and threats against those who marry someone outside of their caste and the court in such situations cannot remain silent because these are matters of great public concern.
  • The court called the caste system a curse and hoped for its destruction soon since it was dividing the nation when it was supposed to be united. 
  • The court further noted that the inter-caste marriages will only help destroy the caste system in the country.
  • The acts of violence and threats against those who undergo inter-caste marriage are purely illegal and must be severely punished.
  • Every major has the right to marry any person since India is a free and democratic nation and if the parents do not approve of their marriage, they can cut-off the social relations with the children but cannot make threats or harass them.
  • The court directed the police authorities to check for such acts of violence against young couples and institute criminal proceedings against those who are involved in these acts.
  • The court in this case also talked about honour killings and stated that there is no honour in killing such persons who undergo inter-caste marriage out of their own will. These killings in the name of inter-caste marriages are barbaric and shameful and amount to murder, which deserves harsh punishment. 

Judgements which referred to the case of Lata Singh vs. State of UP (2006)

This judgement became a landmark on the point of inter-caste marriages and still has a positive impact on society. The Central Government also, in 2013-14 started with the scheme, which is named “Dr. Ambedkar Scheme for Social Integration through Inter-caste Marriage” and is aimed at providing ₹ 2.5 lakhs to the couple who did inter-caste marriage and any one of them is a dalit, appreciating the bold step of undergoing an inter-caste marriage. Similar arrangements for providing assistance to such couples have been introduced in various states like Rajasthan, Haryana, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Let us now have a look at a few recent cases wherein the court used this landmark judgement as a leading precedent: 

Simran Choudhary vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2019)

Facts of the case 

In the case of Simran Choudhary v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2019), both the petitioners were majors and were in love with each other. When they disclosed this fact to their parents and requested their marriage, the parents of the female got annoyed and disapproved of the same. The father of the female even threatened the man. Both the petitioners decided to marry and performed the marriage ceremony as per Hindu rites and customs at Arya Samaj Janipur Jammu. It was stated that the parents of the female made the lives of the petitioners miserable after the marriage. There was continuous harassment from that side and the movements of the petitioners were also restricted due to this. They have also given death threats to the petitioners. Due to all this, the petitioners were forced to file the petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. 

Issues raised

  • Whether the petitioners were major at the time of marriage?
  • Whether the Court can order adequate protection for the petitioners from the harassment by her parents and dispose of the proceedings?

Judgement given

After considering the photo-copies of the scorecards of Secondary School Examination wherein the death of birth was mentioned, the court noted that the petitioners were major. 

It also noted that the petitioners had entered into the marriage wedlock out of their own will and thereby also highlighted the judgement of Lata Singh v. State of U.P. The court in this case also referred to the cases of Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. (2018) and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2018) and considered the law regarding marriages in India and the importance of liberty and autonomy while taking such decisions relating to marriage. Subsequently, the court disposed of the petition and directed the police officials to ensure the protection and safety of lives of the petitioners.

Shafin Jahan vs. Ashokan K.M. (2018)

Facts of the case

In the case of Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. (2018), Hadiya was a Muslim girl aged 24 years and was a student of BHMS at a private college in Salem. A writ of habeas corpus was filed by her parents earlier and the court ordered her to stay with her parents. When she requested the court to stay in the hostel for completing her internship and course, the court allowed her plea but at that time, she got married to the appellant, which was opposed by her father, Ashokan, since it was a case of jihad. The High Court annulled the marriage of Hadiya and the same was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Issue raised

Whether the High Court was correct in nullifying the marriage of the appellant, which was done when they were major and out of their free will?

Judgement given

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and the marriage was held to be valid. It noted that there was a miscarriage of justice by the Kerala High Court and that it had committed a serious error of jurisdiction. It stated that the High Court cannot set a bad law by focusing on the social background of the petitioner. The Court also referred to the present judgement of Lata Singh and stated that every major individual has a right to choose the life they wish for and the partner they wish to marry and the Court or the State cannot put any restriction on the same. The High Court was held to be wrong in this case for favouring the father of the female and restraining her liberty. 

Bhagwan Dass vs. State (NCT) of Delhi (2011)

Facts of the case

The case of Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT) of Delhi (2011) was related to the honour killing of a daughter by his father. The daughter left her husband and was living with her uncle in an incestuous relationship, which made her father infuriated. As a result, the father thought this conduct of his daughter to be dishonourable and thereby caused her death. The trial court convicted him and this decision was upheld by the high court. Therefore, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The appellant also tried to destroy the evidence by performing the last rites of his daughter on his own. The confession made by the appellant to his mother regarding the murder was also considered by the court as an extra judicial confession. 

Issues raised

Whether the appellant was liable for the murder of her daughter in the name of ‘honour killing’?

Judgement given

The Court, while referring to the case of Lata Singh, noted that this is another gruesome honour killing case of a daughter by a father. The court also noted that the appellant tried to cremate the deceased even without the postmortem to destroy any evidence. The court also relied on the statement of the mother of the appellant when appellant told her about the murder of his daughter. This was considered to be an extra judicial confession. The court further held that this was the case of murder and the appellant was rightly convicted by the courts. Thus, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant. 

Conclusion

In the circumstances of this case, the writ petition was allowed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has held that people perpetrating such violence and harassment should be severely punished. It was directed that the criminal proceedings shall be instituted against the petitioner’s brothers and others involved by the concerned authorities. The court held that the petitioner is a major and was major at all times. Hence, she is free to marry anybody and there is no bar to inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law. So, the petitioner, her husband and husband’s relatives did not commit any offence.

The court, by quashing the proceedings against the husband and the relatives of the petitioner, told the police officials to ensure that neither the petitioner nor her husband nor any relatives of the petitioner’s husband were harassed or threatened nor were any acts of violence were committed against them. 

So, it can be concluded by saying that the caste system is a hindrance to a nation’s development and has to be ended as soon as possible. This caste system acts as a bane for progressive India. Hence, by virtue of this landmark judgement, it is clear that every person has a right to choose their own life partner and marrying outside caste is not prohibited and is not illegal or immoral. Fundamental rights have always been considered as a cornerstone of the Constitution of India and definitely a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. This case had provided its citizens with the right against honour killings. It is the landmark judgement since it provided the citizens with the right to marry as per their choice under Article 21 of the Constitution, which widened the scope of the fundamental rights. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What does this case deal with?

This case deals with inter-caste marriages and how, in the name of inter-caste marriages, young men and women who decide to marry of their choice are harassed, threatened and killed, and the court’s stand on the eradication of such social evil. 

Does Article 21 of the Indian Constitution include the right to marry of one’s own choice?

Yes, the right to marry a person of one’s choice is included in Article 21 of the Constitution if that person is a major. 

Who all have the right to choose whom to marry as per the law?

As per the Hindu Marriage Act, only persons who are major or above the age of 18 years, if female and above 21 years, if male have the right to choose to marry under Article 21. However, as per the Indian Majority Act, any person above the age of 18 years is a major and can marry anyone of their choice. 

Are all the fundamental rights, including the right to marry, available only to Indian Citizens?

No, only the fundamental rights given under Articles 15, 16, 19, 29 and 30 are available to Indian citizens and all other fundamental rights are available to both citizens and non-citizens. The right to marry under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is given to citizens as well as non-citizens.

Who all are the exponents of the ‘social contract theory’?

Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau and John Locke are known to be the proponents of the influential theory of the social contract. 

Under which provision does the magistrate record any statement or confession of the person?

Any Metropolitan or Judicial Magistrate has the power to record the statement and confession of a person under Section 164 of the CrPC. 

What do Sections 366 and 368 of the IPC deal with?

Section 366 covers the offence of kidnapping, abducting or inducing any woman to compel her marriage or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. Section 368 talks about the offence of wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement a person who was kidnapped or abducted.

Which scheme has been formulated for those who will perform the inter-caste marriage?

‘Dr. Ambedkar Scheme for Social Integration through Inter-caste marriage’ has been formulated, which aims at providing ₹ 2.5 lakhs to the couple who did inter-caste marriage.

References

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here