The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that the protection of life and liberty under fundamental rights takes precedence, regardless of whether a marriage is invalid, void, or even if no marriage exists between the parties.

Justice Arun Monga's bench directed the police to provide protection to an adult couple, who were below the legal marriageable age, facing threats from their families. The court emphasized that the State has a constitutional duty to prioritize the right to human life above all else, irrespective of whether a citizen is a minor or an adult.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by a couple seeking protection, where the girl was 20 years old, and the boy was 19. They had been in a live-in relationship for a few days and planned to marry once they reached the legal marriageable age. However, they faced threats from the girl's parents, who wanted her to marry someone else and had threatened to kill the couple.

The petitioners argued that they had approached the police for protection, but no action was taken. They further stated that they had been forced to move from place to place, unable to find a safe location to live. As a result, they filed the present petition seeking the Court's intervention.

Emphasizing the inviolable nature of the constitutional fundamental right under Article 21, the Court observed that the issue at hand was not about the petitioners' marriage but about their fundamental right to life and liberty. The Court held:

“I have no hesitation to hold that Constitutional Fundamental Right under Article 21 of Constitution of India stands on a much higher pedestal. Being sacrosanct under the Constitutional Scheme it must be protected, regardless of the solemnization of an invalid or void marriage or even the absence of any marriage between the parties… Mere fact that petitioners are not of marriageable age in the present case would not deprive them of their fundamental right, as envisaged in Constitution of India''

Additionally, the Court referenced a judgment from the Punjab and Haryana High Court in *Seema Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab and Others*, which held that marriage is not a prerequisite for providing security to a runaway couple.

The case underscored the Supreme Court's view that the right to choose a life partner is an integral aspect of liberty and dignity. Once an adult has chosen their partner, neither family members nor anyone else should interfere with their peaceful existence. Therefore, it is the State's responsibility to safeguard their protection and personal liberty.

The Court, fully agreeing with the observations in the case, affirmed that it is the State's constitutional duty to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. Consequently, the petition was granted, and the Superintendent of Police was directed to assess the threat perceived by the petitioners and ensure they receive the necessary protection.

Case Title: Rekha Meghwanshi & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.