Jahanvi Agarwal
On 28th August 2024, the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a strong critique of the antiquated belief that a father is inherently a more suitable guardian for an adult woman, stressing that such a view undermines her fundamental constitutional rights.
The matter arose from a habeas corpus petition filed by a father who sought the release of his 30-year-old daughter, claiming she was being held illegally by a man. However, during the proceedings, the woman made it clear that she neither wished to return to her father’s home nor her husband’s, citing incidents of violence at both places. She expressed a desire to live independently, asserting her right to make her own life choices.
A bench led by Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul took a firm stand on the matter, emphasizing the significance of personal liberty and constitutional protection for adults, particularly women. “Once an adult individual, who is fully competent to make decisions, expresses a clear desire to live independently, the Court cannot, and should not, override that will,” the bench observed. The Court reiterated that the primary purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to safeguard personal liberty and autonomy, and it would be a violation of these principles to force an adult to return to the custody of another person, even if that person is a parent acting out of concern.
Justice Kaul further critiqued the notion that a father is a more appropriate custodian for an adult woman than she is for herself, stating that such a belief is outdated and in direct conflict with constitutional guarantees. “An adult woman, like every citizen of this country, has the right to be treated as an autonomous individual, free from coercion and undue influence,” the Court remarked, adding that her identity and autonomy should not be defined by her relationships or family roles.
The Court also emphasized that the woman’s constitutional right to equality and personal liberty should be upheld without interference. “The Constitution protects the right of every individual to live freely and make independent choices, and this right must not be compromised by societal notions of familial control,” the bench declared.
While acknowledging the father’s concerns, the Court made it clear that these concerns could not justify an infringement on the woman’s freedom. It also referenced its earlier direction to the police to record the woman’s statement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Chandigarh and ensure her safety.
Ultimately, the ruling underscored that the writ of habeas corpus exists to uphold the sanctity of individual freedom, ensuring no one is unlawfully detained or coerced against their will, even under the guise of family protection. The Court’s ruling affirmed the woman’s right to live on her own terms, free from the constraints of traditional guardianship.
Case Name: Raj Kumar Sharma v. State Of Punjab & Ors.
Case Number: CRWP 7809/2024
Bench: Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul