Madhya Pradesh High Court upholds fundamental rights of major citizen to practice religion and make life choices independently; directs police to provide protection against coercion and harassment by family members
In a landmark judgment affirming individual liberty and freedom of religion, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has granted protection to a 20-year-old woman seeking to pursue Diksha (spiritual initiation) under Shwetambar Jain Dharma, directing police authorities to safeguard her against interference and harassment by her family members.
Case Overview
The case, Writ Petition No. 48919 of 2025, was heard by Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt. The petitioner, a major citizen of India, approached the High Court seeking police protection and a declaration of her fundamental rights after her parents and relatives allegedly began harassing and obstructing her decision to renounce worldly life and become a Jain Saadhvi (nun).
Petitioner's Plea
The petitioner submitted that she has consciously chosen to follow Shwetambar Jain Dharma and pursue the religious path of Diksha. Fearing interference from family members who possess considerable influence in society, she sought multiple reliefs including:
- Immediate police protection to ensure her safety, liberty, and freedom of movement
- A declaration restraining parents, guardians, relatives, or any other person from interfering with her religious practice or pursuit of Diksha
- Prevention of coercive action, false complaints, or surveillance against her
- A formal declaration of her rights as a major to exercise fundamental freedoms
Court's Reasoning and Decision
Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt acknowledged the emotional attachment parents naturally possess toward their children while firmly upholding the supremacy of constitutional law. The Court emphasized that the petitioner, being 20 years old and a major, is entitled to practice religion according to her conscience and live her life as per her free will.
The judgment explicitly stated that "petitioner being a major (aged more than 18 years) and citizen of India is entitled to get protection of her family rights and other legal rights and for any obstruction caused by anybody, the same cannot be permitted in eye of law."
Judicial Precedents
The High Court relied significantly on two landmark Supreme Court judgments:
- 1. Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 2006 SC 2522): The Supreme Court held that major persons aged more than 18 years are free to make their own decisions, and courts are required to protect the interests of such persons.
- 2. Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192: This judgment established the duty of state authorities to protect individuals from private coercion and family pressure.
Directions to Police Authorities
The Court directed that if the petitioner approaches the Superintendent of Police or the concerned police station with an application seeking assistance against any coercive methods—including those by her parents—the concerned authority and Station House Officer must immediately take action in accordance with the Supreme Court's directions in Lata Singh and Shakti Vahini cases.
This effectively empowers the police to intervene if the petitioner faces threats, coercion, harassment, or any attempt to forcibly prevent her from pursuing her chosen religious path.
Broader Implications
This judgment carries significant implications for individual autonomy and freedom of religion in India. The Court's decision establishes that:
- - The attainment of majority (18 years) grants individuals the constitutional right to make personal and religious choices independently
- - Parental objections, however emotionally justified, cannot override the fundamental rights of an adult
- - State authorities have a duty to protect individuals from private coercion and family pressure
- - Religious initiation and spiritual pursuits are protected matters of personal choice and conscience
Balancing Act
While demonstrating sympathy for the parents' emotional concerns, Justice Bhatt made clear that the law does not recognize emotional attachment as grounds for restricting an adult's constitutional rights. The judgment reflects the delicate balance courts must maintain between respecting family bonds and protecting individual liberty.
Conclusion
The Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision reaffirms that in India's constitutional framework, the rights of major citizens to practice religion, make life choices, and pursue spiritual paths are inviolable and protected by law. The judgment signals that no person—regardless of familial relationship—can legally coerce or intimidate another adult into abandoning their chosen religious or life path. The Court's directive to police authorities ensures that this protection is not merely theoretical but operationalized through state machinery.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting individual liberty while respecting the constitutional framework that governs Indian society.
Bottom Line:
A major individual is entitled to practice religion and make life choices, including renouncing the world to pursue a religious path, without interference from family or others. The Court must ensure protection of such fundamental rights under Articles 19, 21, 25, and 26 of the Constitution of India.
Statutory Provision(s): Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 19, 21, 25, 26; Indian Penal Code
Tanisha v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (Madhya Pradesh)(Indore) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2975247
