Court says a major woman’s autonomy, privacy and decisional freedom under Article 21 cannot be overridden by parental objection or societal morality.
Srinagar, Sept. 21, 2026: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a major woman is fully competent in law to choose her residence, association and life partner, and that neither parental disagreement nor social disapproval can override her constitutional rights under Article 21.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice M.A. Chowdhary passed the order while hearing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Nusrat Jan and another petitioner seeking protection from interference and harassment. The petitioners had also challenged a series of interim orders passed by a Single Judge that had imposed restrictions affecting the woman’s personal liberty, movement and residence.
The court noted that the petitioner No. 1’s Class 10 certificate from the Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education clearly showed her date of birth as 06.04.2008, and therefore established that she was a major. The Bench also interacted with her directly in open court. The woman stated unequivocally that she wished to go with petitioner No. 2 and sought protection so that her voluntary choice could be exercised without interference.
The Bench observed that once a person attains majority, the law recognizes her right to decide where to live, whom to associate with, and whom to choose as a life partner. It said parental anxiety, though natural, cannot displace the constitutional autonomy of an adult. The court further emphasized that personal relationships of consenting adults fall within the protected zone of privacy and decisional autonomy.
Relying on leading Supreme Court precedents including K.S. Puttaswamy, Shafin Jahan, Navtej Singh Johar, Joseph Shine, D.K. Basu, Olga Tellis and others, the Bench reiterated that constitutional morality must prevail over societal morality. It stressed that neither the State nor society can intrude into the domain of an adult’s choice except in accordance with law.
The court also referred to judgments where Indian courts have protected adult couples from harassment, and held that the State has a duty to safeguard life, liberty and physical safety of citizens, including consenting adults in relationships. It said the right to protection under Article 21 cannot be denied merely because a relationship is viewed as socially unpopular.
In its order, the High Court directed the respondent-State authorities, including the police, to provide appropriate protection to the petitioners and ensure that the voluntary will of petitioner No. 1 remains protected. The writ petition and the appeal were accordingly disposed of.
The Bench made it clear that its observations would not affect any criminal or civil proceedings that may be pending against the petitioners.
Bottom Line :
Major woman is legally competent to choose her residence, association and life partner; parental disagreement or societal morality cannot override her autonomy and privacy under Article 21. State is duty-bound to protect life and liberty of consenting adults and ensure that their voluntary choice prevails, without unlawful interference.
Statutory provision(s): Article 21, Constitution of India, 1950
