Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Ishrat Jan vs Union Territory Of Jammu & on 27 April, 2026
Serial No. 180
Supplementary Cause list
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C)/841/2026 CM/2182/2026
1. Ishrat Jan, Aged 25 Years ...Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
D/O Nazir Ahmad Gojjar
R/O Chak Mohalla, Sni Daron,
Bradi Pathri, Tehsil Charar-e-Sharief,
District Budgam, J&K-191112
2. Bilal Shafi, Aged 28 Years
S/O Mohammad Shafi Bakerwal
R/O Nagabal (Yusmarg),
Tehsil Charar-e-Sharief, District Budgam,
J&K-191112
Through: Ms. Ifra Milad, Advocate
Vs.
1. Union Territory of Jammu &
...Respondent(s)
Kashmir, through Commissioner/
Secretary to Govt., Home Department,
Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu
2. Senior Superintendent of Police,
Budgam, District Budgam, J&K
3. Station House Officer, Police Station
Charar-e-Sharief, District Budgam
J&K
4. Nazir Ahmad Gojjar
S/O Abdulla Gojjar
R/O Chak Mohalla Sni Daron,
Bradi Pathri, Tehsil Charar-e-Sharief,
District Budgam-J&K-191112
5. Zeba Begum
W/O Nazir Ahmad Gojjar
R/O Chak Mohalla, Sni Daron,
Bradi Pathri, Tehsil Charar-e-Sharief,
District Budgam-J&K-191112
6. Nasir Ahmad Gojjar
S/O Nazir Ahmad Gojjar
R/O Chak Mohalla, Sni Daron,
Bradi Pathri, Tehsil Charar-e-Sharief,
District Budgam-J&K-191112
7. Fayaz Ahmad
S/O Ali Mohd & B/O Zeba Begum
R/O Bradi Pathri, Tehsil Charar-e-Sharief,
District Budgam, J&K-191112
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE.
ORDER
27.04.2026
1. The Petitioners claim that they, being major, have contracted marriage out
of their free will and are living as husband and wife, but are apprehensive
to be subjected to physical violence and harassment at the hands of their
relatives, as the Petitioners have contracted marriage against their wishes.
The Petitioners, therefore, seek protection and security cover from the
official Respondents.
2. Heard and perused the record.
3. Perusal of the record annexed with the Writ Petition reveals that the
Petitioners are major and have contracted marriage on 24th of March,
2026, according to the Muslim Personal Law, rites and customs.
4. When two adults, consensually, choose each other as life partners, it is the
manifestation of their choice that is recognized under Articles 19 and 21
of the Constitution. Such right has sanction of constitutional law and once
that is recognized, the said right needs to be protected and it cannot
succumb to conception of class, honour or group thinking. Consent of
family or community or clan is not necessary, once two adult individuals
agree to enter into wedlock and their consent has to be piously given
primacy. The concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the
touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, protection and values it stands for.
5. It is the obligation of the Constitutional Courts as the sentinel on qui vive
to zealously guard the right to liberty of an individual, as the dignified
existence of an individual has an inseparable association with liberty.
Thus, it is emphatically clear that life and liberty sans dignity and choice
is a phenomenon that allows hollowness to enter into the constitutional
recognition of identity of a person. The choice of an individual is an
extricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of where there is
erosion of choice and no one shall be permitted to interfere in the
fructification of the said choice. If right to express one’s own choice is
obstructed, it would be extremely difficult to think of dignity in its
sanctified completeness.
6. When two adults marry out of their volition, they choose their path; they
consummate their relationship; they feel that it is their goal; and they have
the right to do so. And, it can unequivocally be stated that they have the
right and any infringement of the said right is a constitutional violation.
7. Keeping in view the prayer made, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a
direction to the official Respondents to provide adequate protection to the
Petitioners and act in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in cases titled ‘Lata Singh v. State of U. P., (2006) 5
SCC 475′ and ‘Shakti Vahini v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2018 SC
1601′, subject to the condition that the official Respondents will check
and see as to whether the parties are major and that the marriage has been
solemnized in strict accordance with the prevalent laws, and, if there is an
FIR against any of the Petitioner(s), the police concerned may go ahead
with the investigation, in accordance with law.
8. Needless to say, that the disposal of the instant Petition does not
authenticate the marriage of the Petitioners or their age/majority to enter
into marriage, which, however, is otherwise subject to fulfilment of
stipulations as envisaged under the prevalent laws.
9. Writ Petition is, thus, disposed of on the above terms, along with the
connected CM.
(M. A. CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
27.04.2026
“Adil Ismail”
