Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Lata Singh, a major, left her brother's house and married Bramha Nand Gupta, a man from a different caste, of her own free will. Her brothers had her husband's relatives falsely framed for kidnapping, and had a Sessions Trial started against them. The Supreme Court quashed the trial and the warrants, and directed police across the country to protect adults who marry outside their caste or religion from harassment and violence.

Quick Revision

Parties

Lata Singh — petitioner; a major woman, about 27 years old, who married outside her caste and sought to quash the criminal case against her husband's relatives.

State of Uttar Pradesh — respondent No. 1; the State whose police and courts were conducting the criminal proceedings the petitioner sought to quash.

Bramha Nand Gupta — the petitioner's husband, a businessman in Delhi; not a formal party, but the person whose relatives were prosecuted.

Procedural History

1. An FIR (No. 336 of 2000, Police Station Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow) was registered against the petitioner's husband and his relatives alleging kidnapping.
2. The SHO, Police Station Sarojini Nagar, submitted a final report to the Judicial Magistrate stating that no offence was committed by any accused.
3. On 16 May 2001 the Sessions Judge, Lucknow enlarged the accused on bail on a personal bond, observing that there was no offence and the accused were not involved in any offence.
4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow recorded the petitioner's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 29 May 2001, in which she said she married of her own free will.
5. Despite this, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow passed a committal order (an order sending the case for trial before the Sessions Court) on 5 October 2001.
6. A protest petition (an objection to a police report that finds no offence) was filed against the police's final report, alleging the petitioner was not mentally fit; a Board of Doctors of the Psychiatric Centre, Jaipur found no mental illness.
7. The case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 1201 of 2001, titled State of U.P. v. Sangita Gupta & Ors., and was pending before the Fast Track Court V, Lucknow.
8. The Fast Track Court, Lucknow issued non-bailable warrants against all four accused.
9. The accused challenged that order under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), registered as Crl. Misc. No. 520 of 2003. The High Court directed the accused to appear before the Sessions Judge, who would himself decide whether any offence was made out. That matter was still pending when this petition was decided.
10. The petitioner then filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of certiorari (an order quashing proceedings) and/or mandamus (an order directing an authority to act) to quash the Sessions Trial.
11. Judgment was delivered on 7 July 2006 by Markandey Katju, J., on behalf of the Bench of Ashok Bhan and Markandey Katju, JJ.

Facts

1. The petitioner is a major woman, about 27 years old at the time of the judgment. After her parents' sudden death, she lived with her brother Ajay Pratap Singh at LDA Colony, Kanpur Road, Lucknow, where she completed her intermediate in 1997 and graduation in 2000, and was later pursuing a Master's course in Hindi at Lucknow University.
2. On 2 November 2000 the petitioner left her brother's house of her own free will and married Bramha Nand Gupta, who had business in Delhi and elsewhere, at the Arya Samaj Mandir, Delhi. They have a child from this marriage.
3. On 4 November 2000 the petitioner's brother lodged a missing-person report at Sarojini Nagar Police Station, Lucknow. The police then arrested Mamta Gupta and Sangita Gupta (the husband's sisters), Rakesh Gupta (husband of Mamta), and Kallu Gupta (cousin of the petitioner's husband). Mamta was jailed along with her one-month-old child.
4. The petitioner's brothers Ajay Pratap Singh, Shashi Pratap Singh and Anand Pratap Singh, furious over the inter-caste marriage, went to her husband's paternal residence, beat up his mother and uncle, and threw out the luggage, furniture and utensils before locking the house. One of the husband's brothers was allegedly locked in a room for four or five days without food or water.
5. The petitioner's brothers also allegedly cut and sold the standing crop from her husband's agricultural field, took forcible possession of the field, and illegally took possession of the husband's shop, Gupta Helmet Shop, at Badan Singh Market, Rangpuri.
6. The brothers also lodged a First Information Report (an initial police record of a complaint that starts an investigation) alleging kidnapping against the petitioner's husband and his relatives, registered at Police Station Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, leading to the arrests described above. Kallu Gupta was arrested on 2 December 2000, and Mamta Gupta, Rakesh Gupta and Sangita Gupta on 17 December 2000.
7. The three relatives of the petitioner's husband were not granted bail for a long time, though there was no case that they had instigated the marriage.
8. The petitioner's brothers allegedly continued to threaten to kill her husband and his relatives, and to kidnap and kill the petitioner. The Gupta family avoided going to Lucknow out of fear of violence.
9. The petitioner, staying in near-hiding in Jaipur, approached the Rajasthan Women Commission, which recorded her statement on 13 March 2001 and forwarded it to the Superintendent of Police (City), Lucknow. The President of the Rajasthan State Women Commission also wrote to the National Human Rights Commission on 13 March 2001 asking it and the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh, to intervene.
10. The police's final report found no offence, and the accused were released on bail on 16-17 May 2001 (see Procedural History).
11. On 29 May 2001 the petitioner stated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., that she married Bramha Nand Gupta of her own free will. The Magistrate nonetheless passed a committal order on 5 October 2001.
12. A protest petition was filed alleging the petitioner was mentally unfit; a Board of Doctors of the Psychiatric Centre, Jaipur found she had no mental illness.
13. The Fast Track Court, Lucknow issued non-bailable warrants against all four accused. The accused's Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) resulted in a direction to appear before the Sessions Judge, and the matter was still pending.
14. The petitioner alleged she could not visit Lucknow, fearing danger to her life and to her husband's and child's lives, and that the properties of her husband's family, including the house, agricultural land and shop, had been forcibly taken over by her brothers.

Issues Raised

1. Did the petitioner, her husband, or her husband's relatives commit any offence by reason of the petitioner's inter-caste marriage?
2. Is the continuation of Sessions Trial No. 1201 of 2001, and the non-bailable warrants issued in it, an abuse of the process of the court that should be quashed?
3. What directions are needed to prevent harassment, threats and violence against major couples who marry outside their caste or religion?

Arguments Contended

The judgment does not record separate submissions made on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh; it states only that the Court heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State Government. The points below are what the judgment attributes to the petitioner.

For the petitioner:

• The petitioner, being a major, married Bramha Nand Gupta of her own free will; there is no bar to an inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law.
• No offence was committed by the petitioner, her husband, or his relatives; the criminal case was falsely engineered by her brothers because they were furious over the inter-caste marriage.
• The petitioner's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement confirmed her free will, and the police's own final report found no offence, yet the case was allowed to continue and warrants were issued.
• The petitioner and her husband's family faced continuing threats, harassment and violence from her brothers, who had also forcibly taken over the family's house, land and shop.

For the respondent (State of Uttar Pradesh): no specific counter-arguments are recorded in the judgment; the police's own final report, accepted by the Sessions Judge in granting bail on 16 May 2001, had already found that no offence was committed.

Court's Reasoning

The judgment has no numbered paragraphs, so no paragraph numbers are cited; the opinion is cited below as Katju, J.'s opinion.

Opinion of Katju, J. (for Ashok Bhan and Markandey Katju, JJ.)

1. Noted: The Court considered the facts and heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State Government. (Katju, J.'s opinion)
2. Held: The petitioner is, and was at all relevant times, a major. She is free to marry anyone she likes, or live with anyone she likes. (Katju, J.'s opinion)
3. Held: There is no bar to an inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law. Why: On that basis the Court could not see what offence was committed by the petitioner, her husband, or her husband's relatives. (Katju, J.'s opinion)
4. Held: No offence was committed by any of the accused, and the whole criminal case was "an abuse of the process of the Court as well as of the administrative machinery". Why: It was brought only at the instance of the petitioner's brothers, who were furious because the petitioner married outside her caste. (Katju, J.'s opinion)
5. Noted: The Court was distressed that instead of acting against the petitioner's brothers for their unlawful and high-handed acts, the police proceeded against the petitioner's husband and his relatives. (Katju, J.'s opinion)
6. Noted: Several such instances of harassment, threats and violence against young men and women marrying outside their caste were coming to the Court's knowledge. It found it necessary to make general comments on the matter. Why: The Court said it cannot remain silent on matters of great public concern. (Katju, J.'s opinion)
7. Held: The caste system is a curse on the nation, and the sooner it is destroyed the better. Why: It divides the nation at a time when the nation must unite to face its challenges. (Katju, J.'s opinion)
8. Held: Inter-caste marriages are, in fact, in the national interest, since they help destroy the caste system. (Katju, J.'s opinion)
9. Held: Acts of violence, threats or harassment against those who undergo an inter-caste marriage are wholly illegal, and those who commit them must be severely punished. (Katju, J.'s opinion)
10. Held: Once a person becomes a major, he or she can marry whosoever he or she likes. If parents disapprove of an inter-caste or inter-religious marriage, the maximum they can do is cut off social relations with their child. They cannot threaten, commit or instigate violence, or harass the couple. (Katju, J.'s opinion)
11. Held (direction): Administration and police authorities throughout the country must ensure that a major couple who undergo an inter-caste or inter-religious marriage are not harassed or subjected to threats or violence by anyone. Anyone who gives such threats, or harasses, or commits or instigates such acts, must be prosecuted by the police. Why: Further stern action must be taken against such persons, as provided by law. (Katju, J.'s opinion)
12. Held: "There is nothing honourable in such killings", referring to so-called "honour" killings of persons who marry inter-caste or inter-religiously of their own free will. Why: They are barbaric and shameful acts of murder committed by brutal, feudal-minded persons who deserve harsh punishment; only in this way can such acts of barbarism be stamped out. (Katju, J.'s opinion)

Authorities

This judgment does not name or discuss any other case. Also cited in footnotes: none. The judgment has no footnotes.

Provisions and statutes the Court referred to:

• Article 32 of the Constitution: the right to move the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of fundamental rights; the petitioner used it to seek certiorari and mandamus.
• Sections 366 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code: the offences named in the FIR — kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel her marriage (Section 366), and wrongfully concealing or keeping a kidnapped person in confinement (Section 368).
• Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: recording of a person's statement before a Magistrate; the petitioner's statement under this section confirmed she married of her own free will.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: the High Court's power to act to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice; used by the accused to challenge the non-bailable warrants.
• The Hindu Marriage Act: the Court noted it contains no bar to an inter-caste marriage.

Judgement

The writ petition was allowed. The Court gave these directions:

1. The proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 1201 of 2001, titled State of U.P. v. Sangita Gupta & Ors., arising out of FIR No. 336 of 2000, Police Station Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, pending in the Fast Track Court V, Lucknow, are quashed.
2. The warrants against the accused are also quashed.
3. The police at all the concerned places must ensure that neither the petitioner, nor her husband, nor any relatives of the petitioner's husband are harassed or threatened, nor subjected to acts of violence. Anyone found doing so must be proceeded against sternly in accordance with law by the authorities concerned.
4. Criminal proceedings shall be instituted immediately by the concerned authorities against the petitioner's brothers and others involved, in view of the allegations set out in the petition.
5. As a general direction, administration and police authorities throughout the country must ensure that a major couple who undergo an inter-caste or inter-religious marriage are not harassed by anyone, nor subjected to threats or acts of violence. Anyone who gives such threats, harasses, or commits or instigates such acts, must be prosecuted by the police and dealt with sternly as provided by law.

Legal Principle / Ratio

An adult has the right to marry any person of their own choice, and an inter-caste or inter-religious marriage is not an offence under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law. A disapproving family may cut off social relations but cannot threaten, harass or use violence against the couple, and the police must act against anyone who does. Key holding: "once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes."

Subsequent Treatment

Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, decided 27 March 2018. Bench: Dipak Misra, C.J.I., A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ. Paragraph numbers below are from this judgment.

• The Court set out this case (para 30) as one of the pronouncements where it earlier expressed concern about violence against couples who marry outside their caste. It noted that a two-judge Bench allowed the writ petition of a petitioner whose life, and her husband's life, was in constant danger from her brothers' threats.
• It noted (para 30) that the Court had found no bar to inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law, so no offence was committed by the petitioner, her husband, or his relatives. It also recorded this Court's dismay that the police proceeded against the husband and his relatives instead of the petitioner's brothers.
• It reproduced (para 30) this Court's direction to police authorities nationwide to prevent harassment or violence against major couples in inter-caste or inter-religious marriages, and its statement that "honour" killings are barbaric and shameful acts of murder with nothing honourable about them.
• It noted (para 32) that a later decision, Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu, referred to this case's observations and repeated that there is nothing honourable in honour killing, calling it barbaric and shameful murder deserving harsh punishment.

Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P., Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench), Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 113 of 2016, decided 3 January 2023. Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. Ramasubramanian, J. wrote the main judgment; the paragraph number below is from his opinion.

• The Court discussed an earlier suo motu case on a gang-rape ordered by a village court. It noted (para 99, Ramasubramanian, J.) that this case dealt with honour killings of youngsters in inter-caste and inter-religious marriages. It was one of two decisions considered in that earlier case, along with Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu.

Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., Supreme Court of India, decided 9 April 2018. Bench: Dipak Misra, C.J.I., A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ. Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. wrote a concurring opinion (a separate opinion agreeing with the outcome); the paragraph number below is from his opinion.

• Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. noted (para 14) that a two-judge Bench in this case took judicial notice of the harassment, threat and violence faced by young women and men who marry outside their caste or faith, and said it could not remain silent on such matters of grave concern.
• He reproduced (para 14) this Court's holding that once a person becomes a major, he or she can marry whosoever he or she likes, and its direction to police authorities nationwide to prevent harassment or violence against such couples.

Critical Analysis

Analysis based on the judgment text.

• The nationwide direction to administration and police authorities does not set out specific guidelines, timelines or an accountability mechanism for enforcing it.
• The judgment directs that criminal proceedings be instituted immediately against the petitioner's brothers, but does not require any report back to the Court on whether this direction was carried out.
• The Court records the protest petition's allegation that the petitioner was mentally unfit, and the medical board's finding against it, without further discussing why such an allegation was made or how it should be treated in similar future cases.

Significance

• One of the earliest Supreme Court judgments to squarely address harassment and violence against couples who marry outside their caste.
• Holds that an adult's choice of spouse across caste or religious lines is protected under ordinary law, and directs nationwide police protection for such couples.
• Condemns honour killings as barbaric, shameful acts of murder deserving harsh punishment, rather than as a matter of family honour.

Exam-Important Points

• Rule: an adult may marry whomever they choose; inter-caste and inter-religious marriage is not barred by the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law.
• Trap: a disapproving family may only cut off social relations — it cannot threaten, harass or use violence against the couple.
• Honour killing is not honourable: the Court calls it a barbaric and shameful act of murder.
• Directions: nationwide police protection for major couples in inter-caste/inter-religious marriages, and strict prosecution of anyone who threatens or harms them.
• Result: Sessions Trial No. 1201/2001 and the non-bailable warrants were quashed; counter-proceedings were directed against the petitioner's brothers.
• Citation: AIR 2006 SC 2522; (2006) 5 SCC 475; decided by Markandey Katju, J. for a two-judge Bench.

Prepared from the full text of the judgment. This judgment has no numbered paragraphs.