In a society as diverse as India, love often finds itself standing at the crossroads of tradition, religion, and societal expectations. While the Constitution promises liberty, equality, and dignity, real-life experiences of couples—especially those in inter-religious relationships—frequently tell a different story. The judgment delivered by the Gujarat High Court in Shahrukhkhan Rahimkhan Pathan vs State of Gujarat & Ors. on 29 September 2017 stands as a powerful reminder that constitutional rights do not bow to social pressure .
This case is not merely about a couple seeking protection; it is about the right of adults to decide their own future, free from fear, coercion, and violence. The Court’s firm stand reinforces the idea that personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the freedom to marry a person of one’s choice—irrespective of religion or community.
Case Overview: Shahrukhkhan Rahimkhan Pathan vs State of Gujarat
The case arose from a Special Criminal Application (Habeas Corpus) filed before the Gujarat High Court. The petitioner, Shahrukhkhan Rahimkhan Pathan, approached the Court seeking the production and protection of Bijal, an adult woman with whom he intended to marry .
The respondents included:
The State of Gujarat
Police authorities
Certain relatives and neighbors who were allegedly opposing the relationship
At its core, the petition questioned whether society or even law-enforcement agencies could interfere in the consensual decisions of two adults.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner and the corpus were both educated adults, residing in the same village. They had known each other for over three years and were in a consensual romantic relationship. The woman, aged 21, was pursuing a professional degree in physiotherapy, clearly capable of making informed life decisions .
Trouble began when their families and neighbors objected to the relationship on religious grounds. What followed was deeply disturbing:
The woman was allegedly kept under house confinement
She faced extreme mental harassment
There were threats to the petitioner and his family
Their house was vandalized, forcing family members to flee
Despite these challenges, the couple applied for marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, choosing a lawful route to formalize their relationship.
Why a Habeas Corpus Petition Was Filed
A Habeas Corpus petition is a constitutional remedy used to challenge illegal detention. In this case, the petitioner alleged that Bijal was being unlawfully restrained by her relatives and that her liberty was under serious threat .
Importantly, Habeas Corpus is not limited to prison detentions. Indian courts have consistently held that illegal confinement by family members also attracts judicial intervention—especially when the detained person is an adult woman.
Role of the Gujarat High Court
The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court adopted a victim-centric and constitutionally grounded approach. Rather than relying solely on allegations, the judges personally interacted with the corpus in chambers, ensuring her statement was free from fear or influence .
This approach reflects judicial sensitivity, particularly in cases involving:
Family pressure
Honor-based violence
Inter-faith relationships
Statement of the Corpus Before the Court
During her interaction with the Court, Bijal clearly stated that:
She wished to go with the petitioner
She feared for her life and safety
She apprehended violence from certain relatives and community members
Her statement left no ambiguity. She was not under coercion, nor was she confused. She was a young woman asserting her constitutional right to choose her partner .
Police Conduct and Allegations
One of the most troubling aspects of the case was the allegation of police misconduct. The petitioner’s family claimed that:
Police officers acted under community pressure
Excessive force was used against the petitioner’s brother
Complaints against officers were ignored
The Court expressed serious concern, emphasizing that police must act as protectors, not predators .
Right to Marry a Person of One’s Choice
The Court reaffirmed a settled constitutional principle:
👉 The right to life under Article 21 includes the right to marry a person of one’s choice.
Once a person attains majority, neither parents, relatives, nor society can dictate marital choices. Consent—not community approval—is the cornerstone of a lawful marriage.
Inter-Religion Marriage and Constitutional Morality
This judgment strongly upholds constitutional morality over social morality. Inter-religious marriages, though often opposed socially, are:
Legally valid
Constitutionally protected
Essential to a pluralistic democracy
The Court made it clear that religious differences cannot be used as a weapon to deny personal liberty .
Reliance on Supreme Court Judgment: Lata Singh Case
The Gujarat High Court relied heavily on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006), which condemned honor-based harassment and violence .
The Supreme Court had categorically held that:
Adults are free to marry anyone
Harassment of inter-caste or inter-religious couples is illegal
Authorities must take strict action against offenders
Court’s Observations on Communal Interference
The Court did not mince words while addressing communal instigation. It observed that:
Creating communal tension undermines the rule of law
Such acts are a disservice to the nation
The State must act firmly against instigators
This strong language sends a clear signal that mob mentality has no place in constitutional governance .
Grant of Police Protection
Recognizing the real and imminent threat to the couple, the Court directed:
Immediate police protection
Escort by neutral police personnel
Continuous safety assurance to the couple and their families
These directions underline the State’s duty to protect life and liberty, even when social resistance is intense.
Final Order of the Court
The Court ultimately:
Allowed the petition
Granted liberty to the corpus to go with the petitioner
Directed authorities to ensure safety and prevent retaliation
This decisive order restored not just physical safety, but dignity and autonomy to the individuals involved .
Legal Significance of the Judgment
This case serves as:
A precedent for protection of inter-faith couples
A warning against police inaction or bias
A reaffirmation of Article 21 jurisprudence
It strengthens the legal shield around couples who choose love over societal expectations.
Conclusion
The judgment in Shahrukhkhan Rahimkhan Pathan vs State of Gujarat is more than a legal decision—it is a constitutional statement. It reminds society that freedom is not selective, love is not a crime, and adulthood comes with the right to choose one’s destiny. Courts, as guardians of fundamental rights, must—and did—stand tall against fear, prejudice, and unlawful interference.
FAQs
1. What was the main issue in this case?
The unlawful interference and threat to an adult inter-religious couple seeking to marry.
2. Why was Habeas Corpus filed?
To challenge the alleged illegal confinement and restriction of the woman’s liberty.
3. Did the Court allow the marriage?
The Court upheld the couple’s right to marry and granted protection.
4. What constitutional right was involved?
Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty.
5. Why is this judgment important?
It reinforces legal protection for inter-faith couples and limits societal interference.