Lata Singh (hereinafter referred as 'Petitioner') is a major who married Bramha Nand Gupta after leaving her brother's house of her own free will. The petitioner's brothers filed a missing complain and the police arrested four relatives of the petitioner's husband. As the petitioner had an inter-caste marriage her brothers were furious.

Hence, there were various instances of torture, assault, humiliation, harassment and irreparable harm of the petitioner's husband and his relatives by the petitioner's brothers. They also filed a false police report alleging kidnapping of the petitioner against her husband and his relatives. The petitioner's husband's house, agricultural field and his shop were illegally taken over and they were threatened that they will kill the petitioner's husband and his relatives and kill the petitioner too.

It is alleged that despite the fact that there was no evidence against them that they instigated the petitioner to marry, the relatives of the petitioner's husband were denied bail by the court.

The petitioner approached the Rajasthan State Women Commission, Jaipur. They recorded her statement which was then sent to the Superintendent of Police of Lucknow. In a letter the President of the Rajasthan State Women Commission asked the National Human Rights Commission and the Chief Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh to get involved in the matter. The SHO of Police Station Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow submitted a final report saying that none of the accused committed any offense. Because of this the accused was granted bail.

The petitioner's statement was recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Lucknow in which the Petitioner said that she chose to marry her spouse of her own will. The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Lucknow issued the committal order despite this statement, disregarding the fact that the police had already submitted their final report on the case. A protest petition was filed against the final report of the police alleging that the Petitioner was not mentally fit. The Petitioner was medically examined by experts who stated that the Petitioner was not suffering from any type of mental illness.

Lata Singh v. State of U.P & Another - 2006 (5) SCC 475
The Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India, Delhi
Bench:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju
Counsels:
For Petitioner- Sakesh Kumar, Yogmaya Agnihotri, and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs.
For Respondent- Reena Singh and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Advs.
Date Of Judgement: 7 July 2006

Issues Raised Before The Court

• Whether The Right To Marry A Person Of One's Own Choice Is In The Scope Of Article 21 And Article 19 Of The Constitution Of India?
• Whether The Relatives Of The Petitioner's Husband Were Detained Illegally?
• Whether The FIR Of Kidnapping Of The Petitioner Against Her Husband By The Petitioner's Brothers Was False Or True?

Relevant Articles Of Constitution Of India

• Article 21: "No Person Shall Be Deprived Of His Life Or Personal Liberty Except According To Procedure Established By Law."
• Article 25: "(1) Subject To Public Order, Morality And Health And To The Other Provisions Of This Part, All Persons Are Equally Entitled To Freedom Of Conscience And The Right Freely To Profess, Practise And Propagate Religion."
• Article 19(1)(a): "(1) All Citizens Shall Have The Right— (A) To Freedom Of Speech And Expression."
• Article 32: "The Right To Move The Supreme Court By Appropriate Proceedings For The Enforcement Of The Rights Conferred By This Part Is Guaranteed."
• Article 38: "[(1)] The State Shall Strive To Promote The Welfare Of The People By Securing And Protecting As Effectively As It May A Social Order In Which Justice, Social, Economic And Political, Shall Inform All The Institutions Of The National Life."
• Article 51A(e): "To Promote Harmony And The Spirit Of Common Brotherhood Amongst All The People Of India Transcending Religious, Linguistic And Regional Or Sectional Diversities; To Renounce Practices Derogatory To The Dignity Of Women."

Contentions Of Parties

Arguments By The Counsel Of The Petitioner

• The Petitioner's Right To Marry And Choose Her Spouse Of Her Own Will Was Violated Which Is Protected Under Article 21 Of The Constitution Of India. As The Petitioner Was A Major, She Should Be Allowed To Marry Anyone She Wanted.
• The Three Relatives Of The Petitioner's Husband Were Illegally Detained And Not Granted Bail Even Though There Was No Evidence Against Them.
• The Petitioner's Brothers Threatened And Committed Violence Against The Petitioner's Husband And His Relatives And Even The Distant Relatives Were Not Spared.
• The Crops, Agricultural Land, Shop, And House Of The Petitioner's Husband Were Illegally Seized And Damaged.
• The Petitioner Is Mentally Sound And Her Husband And His Relatives Did Not Kidnap Her.

Arguments By The Counsel Of The Respondent

• The Counsel For The Respondent Argues That The Petitioner's Brothers Were Concerned About The Family's Honor And Societal Norms Which Were Compromised Due To Her Inter-Caste Marriage.
• They Were Genuinely Concerned About The Petitioner's Well-Being As They Considered Her Decision To Marry As Impulsive Especially Because She Was Mentally Ill.
• The Marriage Of The Petitioner With Brahma Nand Gupta Is Not Valid As She Is Mentally Ill And Therefore Her Consent Should Not Be Considered As Free Consent.
• The Police Acted Within The Scope Of Their Legal Power When They Arrested The Relatives Of The Petitioner's Husband As A Missing Report Was Filed By The Petitioner's Brothers.

Judgement

Fast Track Court, Lucknow The Case Was Registered As "State Of U.P. V. Sangita Gupta" In The Fast Track Court, Lucknow. A Non-Bailable Warrant Was Issued Against All The Four Accused By The Fast Track Court, Lucknow Before Whom The Case Was Pending. Against This Order Of The Court, The Accused Filed A Petition Under Section 482 Code Of Criminal Procedure In The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench). Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) The Accused Was Ordered By The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) To Be Present Before The Sessions Judge, Who Would Separately Investigate His Suspected Crimes. Supreme Court Of India, Delhi The Judgment Of The Court Was Delivered By The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju And It Was In Favour Of The Petitioner. The Court Was Of The View That No Offence Was Committed By Any Of The Accused And As The Petitioner Was A Major, She Has The Right To Marry Anyone She Wants. The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Or Any Other Law Does Not Prohibit Inter-Caste Marriages. The Proceedings Pending Against The Petitioner's Family In The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) Were Quashed. The Police Were Directed To Ensure That The Petitioner's Husband And His Relatives Were Not Harassed Or That There Was No Violent Action Against Them. Criminal Proceedings Were Directed Against The Brothers Of The Petitioner For Their Violence And Threat Against The Petitioner, The Petitioner's Husband And His Relatives. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Said:

"Disturbing News Are Coming From Several Parts Of The Country That Young Men And Women Who Undergo Inter-Caste Marriage Are Threatened With Violence, Or Violence Is Actually Committed On Them. Such Acts Of Violence Or Threats Or Harassment Are Wholly Illegal And Those Who Commit Them Must Be Severely Punished. This Is A Free And Democratic Country, And Once A Person Becomes A Major He Or She Can Marry Whosoever He/She Likes. If The Parents Of The Boy Or Girl Do Not Approve Of Such Inter-Caste Or Inter-Religion Marriage, The Maximum They Can Do Is That They Can Cut Off Social Relations With The Son Or The Daughter, But They Cannot Give Threats Or Commit Or Instigate Acts Of Violence And Cannot Harass The Person Who Undergoes Such Inter-Caste Or Inter-Religious Marriage."

Ratio Decidendi

The Court Found That No Offense Was Committed By Any Of The Accused As The Petitioner Was A Major At All The Relevant Times And Therefore, She Has The Right To Choose Her Spouse Of Her Own Free Will.

Obiter Dicta

The Caste System Is One Such Curse On Our Nation Which Has Deep Roots In Society. It Also Plays A Significant Role In Dividing The Country. The Caste System Is A Hindrance To Our Nation's Development And It Should Be Ended As Soon As Possible. Inter-Caste Marriages Are Of National Interest As They Can Play An Important Role In Destroying The Caste System. "We Sometimes Hear Of 'Honour' Killings Of Such Persons Who Undergo Inter-Caste Or Inter-Religious Marriage Of Their Own Free Will. There Is Nothing Honourable In Such Killings, And In Fact They Are Nothing But Barbaric And Shameful Acts Of Murder Committed By Brutal, Feudal-Minded Persons Who Deserve Harsh Punishment. Only In This Way Can We Stamp Out Such Acts Of Barbarism."

This Case Has Been Used As Precedent In The Following Cases

This Case Was A Landmark Case And One Of The First Of Its Own Kind Which Dealt With Issues Like Honour Killing And Inter-Caste Marriage. Therefore, This Case Did Not Have Any Precedents. However, Being A Landmark Case, This Case Was Referred And Used Several Times As A Precedent To Decide The Case. Some Of These Cases Are:

1. Shakti Vahini V. Union Of India (2018)
2. S. Khushboo V. Kanniammal And Another (2010)
3. Vikas Yadav V. State Of Uttar Pradesh (2016)
4. Arumugam Servai V. State Of Tamil Nadu (2011)

Present Status Of The Judgement
As per the Supreme Court of India's ruling, The Present Status of Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Another, is that the verdict is legitimate and has not been overturned. This judgment has a significant impact on the country in the context of inter-caste marriage, 'honour' killings, and the right of a major to choose a spouse of their own will.

Case Comment
The case Lata Singh v. State of U.P and Another is a landmark judgment in the Indian legal history as it defined an individual's right to choose her spouse of her own free will without any pressure or fear from anyone else. It also talks about practices like honour killings and inter-caste marriage which are barbaric and inhumane practices that are still prevalent in the country.

In this case, the Supreme Court of India said that all the accused were innocent and protection will be provided to them.
The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is correct and supported by many for the following reasoning of the case:

• The petitioner was a major at all the relevant times and therefore, she has the right to choose her spouse of her own free will.
• The accused committed no crime and they were illegally detained.

However, there are a few points that need to be considered:

• The ruling in this case was not properly executed as even today there are cases of honour killings and couples who had an inter-caste marriage are threatened and violence is committed against them.
• The case also shows the challenges of getting timely justice, which is one of the biggest flaws in the Indian judicial system according to me, as Lata Singh and her husband faced harassment and violence for a very long time before getting relief and justice.

End Notes:

1. India Const. art. 21
2. India Const. art. 25
3. India Const. art. 19, cl. 1, sub cl. (a)
4. India Const. art. 32
5. India Const. art. 38
6. India Const. art. 51A(e)
7. Code Crime. Proc. § 482
8. Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Another, 2006 (5) SCC 475
9. Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Another, 2006 (5) SCC 475
10. Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, 2018 (7) SCC 192
11. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal and Another, 2010 (5) SCC 600
12. Vikas Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2016 (9) SCC 541
13. Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2011 INSC 313