Shreya Gupta
On 5th August, 2025, the Delhi High Court passed an order which order arises from a protection plea by a young couple who had eloped and married against the woman’s family’s wishes. After the marriage, the woman’s relatives allegedly issued life threats through calls and messages, and they also lodged a “missing person” complaint to insinuate that the woman had been taken away.
The Delhi Police carried out a preliminary inquiry and discovered that the woman had voluntarily left her parental home and married of her own free will. That finding is legally significant: it negates any premise of abduction or unlawful detention and reframes the dispute as a pure protection matter, i.e., preventing private actors (the family) from interfering with the couple’s liberty.
Justice Sanjeev Narula states that the case lies within Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty, privacy, and dignity.
The Court’s central statement “The right of two consenting adults to choose each other as life partners and to live together in peace is a facet of their personal liberty, privacy, and dignity… Family disapproval cannot curtail that autonomy” is not merely rhetorical.
It echoes a consistent constitutional trajectory in which adult choice in intimate relationships is treated as an aspect of decisional autonomy, protected from social pressures and family “honour” claims. By invoking the Supreme Court’s repeated affirmations, the order anchors itself in binding precedent that obliges the State to shield consenting adult couples from intimidation or harm.
On the fact, once voluntariness was established, the Court’s role shifts from adjudicating contested custody or guardianship to ensuring effective state protection. The continued existence of a missing complaint becomes largely academic: the police’s inquiry has already clarified that there is no “missing” person, only a married adult exercising her choice. This alignment between fact-finding and constitutional principle prevents misuse of criminal process as a tool of familial control and avoids the chilling effect such complaints can have on adult autonomy.
The operative directions are practical and accountability-oriented. The Court orders the Delhi Police to “ensure adequate protection,” which it operationalizes by requiring the Station House Officer to designate a beat officer specifically tasked with the couple’s safety. In Delhi Police practice, a beat officer is the local, first-response point of contact responsible for patrolling and community interface; tying protection to a named beat officer makes responsibility traceable and reduces bureaucratic diffusion. The SHO must also sensitize the officer to the Court’s order and furnish the couple with two contact channels, the beat officer’s mobile number and the police station’s 24×7 contact so help is accessible, not theoretical.
To create a paper trail and deter future threats, the Court further directs that upon any complaint of intimidation, the police shall promptly make a “DD entry” (a Daily Diary entry) and extend immediate assistance. This insistence on contemporaneous recording serves two purposes: it creates evidentiary material in case criminal action later becomes necessary, and it signals to potential intimidators that the State is actively monitoring the situation. The Court also streamlines coordination by directing the petitioners’ counsel to share the couple’s current address and contact details with the Investigating Officer the same day, closing any logistical gaps that might otherwise delay protection.
At a doctrinal level, the order reinforces three core propositions.
First, adult choice in marriage/companionship lies at the heart of Article 21’s guarantee of dignity, privacy, and personal liberty.
Second, private disapproval, including by one’s family, cannot be converted into state coercion through the criminal process.
Third, the police bear a positive duty not only to refrain from interfering but to affirmatively protect such couples when credible threats arise.
The Court thus transforms constitutional values into a concrete protection protocol rather than leaving them as abstract ideals.
In practical effect, the order gives the couple immediate, on-ground safeguards and a clear escalation pathway if threats persist. It also sends a systemic message: familial opposition does not override constitutional autonomy, and courts will impose enforceable, monitorable duties on the police to secure that autonomy. For similarly placed couples, this decision underscores that approaching the High Court can yield not just general assurances but specific mechanisms named officers, direct phone lines, and mandatory diary entries that translate constitutional rights into day-to-day security.
Case Title: Prince Tyagi And Anr Vs State of NCT of Delhi And Ors
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 2419/2025 & CRL.M.A. 22758/2025, CRL.M.A. 22759/2025
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula
Click here to access the order
Instagram: Click Here.
LinkedIn: Click Here.
For Collaboration and Business: Click Here.