The Constitution gives every adult the right to choose a life partner. Yet in 2026, many couples still have to seek police protection from the courts because their own families refuse to accept their relationship

New Delhi: Every few weeks, another young couple walks into the Delhi High Court with the same request. They do not ask for money or property. Instead They ask for protection. They want the court to stop their families from threatening, harassing or harming them because they chose their own partner.

These couples come from different backgrounds, but their stories often sound the same. A young woman says her parents have threatened her after she chose someone they did not approve of. A young man says his family has tried to force the couple to separate. Many couples leave their homes, move to another city and change their phone numbers. Even then, they often feel unsafe. They turn to the High Court because they believe only a court order can protect them.

In March 2026, the Delhi High Court heard another such case. Justice Saurabh Banerjee dealt with the matter in Kartik & Another v. State of NCT of Delhi & Others. The case involved a young couple living together in a live-in relationship. The woman’s father allegedly threatened and harassed them because he opposed their relationship.

The couple had signed a cohabitation agreement in February 2026. Both were legal adults. One partner was born in 2006 and the other in 2007. They had chosen to live together on their own. They had not broken any law or harmed anyone. Yet they still had to approach the High Court to feel safe in their own home.

Justice Banerjee made the court’s position clear. He said parents cannot decide whom an adult should love or live with. The Constitution gives every adult the freedom to choose a life partner. That right comes from Articles 19 and 21, which protect personal liberty and individual freedom.

The court also made another important point. It said the law protects both married couples and couples in live-in relationships. The nature of the relationship does not change a person’s fundamental rights. If two adults freely choose to live together, the state must protect them from threats and violence.

The judgment once again reminded families that they cannot interfere with the decisions of consenting adults. It also reminded the police that they have a legal duty to protect such couples whenever they face danger.

The Delhi High Court Has Repeated This Message Again and Again

The Kartik judgment was not an isolated decision. Within a few weeks, Justice Banerjee passed another order in a similar case.

In Laxmi Devi & Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Others, a newly married couple approached the Delhi High Court after the bride’s father opposed their marriage. The court protected the couple and repeated the same constitutional principle. It said no parent, village council or community has the authority to overrule the decision of two consenting adults.

Soon after that, the court heard another case.

In Kirti v. State (NCT of Delhi), a couple married according to Hindu customs on March 18, 2026. After the marriage, the woman’s father allegedly threatened them so often that they had to leave Delhi for their safety.

Justice Banerjee noted that both individuals were adults who had made their own decision without pressure or force. He described them as “grown-up consenting individuals” who had exercised their free will. He directed the police to take every possible step to protect them.

These were three separate cases.

The couples came from different families and different backgrounds. Yet all three cases shared the same problem. Even in 2026, adult couples still had to ask the judiciary to protect a right that the Constitution had already guaranteed.

The Constitution Settled This Question Long Ago

The right to choose a life partner is not a new legal principle. The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed this right over the past two decades.

In Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006), the Supreme Court said inter-caste marriages are completely legal. It also directed the police to protect couples who faced threats because of such marriages.

In Vikas Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016), the court ruled that no one can violate a woman’s freedom to choose her partner in the name of family honour.

In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018), the Supreme Court held that choosing whom to marry forms an essential part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

One judgment, however, changed the legal conversation more than any other.

In Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), a three-judge Bench led by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, along with Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.M. Khanwilkar, issued detailed directions to prevent honour crimes across the country.

The court did much more than restate existing law. It ordered governments to take practical steps to protect vulnerable couples. It directed states to create safe houses, establish 24-hour helplines, form special police cells in every district and take preventive action whenever families or community groups threatened adult couples.

The Supreme Court also made another important observation. It said khap panchayats or similar community bodies have no legal authority to interfere in the marriages of consenting adults.

If the Law Is So Clear, Why Do Couples Still Need Court Orders?

This question lies at the heart of these repeated cases. The legal position has remained clear for years. The problem lies elsewhere.

Many families still believe they should control whom their children marry. Some oppose relationships because of caste. Others object because of religion, social status or community traditions. In many cases, parents believe that a daughter’s personal choice will damage the family’s honour.

When conflicts arise, many couples discover that legal rights alone do not guarantee safety. Some families continue to threaten them. While Some communities pressure them to separate. Some local authorities fail to respond quickly.

As a result, many couples believe they cannot rely on ordinary police protection without first obtaining a High Court order.

The repeated cases before the Delhi High Court show that the gap between constitutional rights and everyday reality remains wide.

A court can declare that adults have the right to choose their partners. Society, however, does not always accept that choice.

Caste and Community Continue to Influence Relationships

Research on honour-based violence shows that couples face the greatest risk when they cross social boundaries. Relationships between people from different castes, religions or communities often attract the strongest opposition.

Several studies have shown that Uttar Pradesh reports one of the highest numbers of honour-related crimes in the country. Data also indicates that many of these crimes involve caste-based conflicts. Bihar accounts for another significant share of reported cases. Haryana and Punjab, where khap panchayats have traditionally exercised social influence, continue to report similar incidents.

Many people assume that such problems exist only in villages. That assumption is wrong. Cities like Delhi also witness similar conflicts.

Many families migrate from rural areas to cities, but they often bring the same social beliefs with them.

Young couples sometimes leave their hometowns hoping to find anonymity in Delhi. Instead, they discover that family members have followed them or used relatives and community networks to track them down.

Changing cities does not always mean escaping the threat.

Women Usually Face the Greatest Risk

Most honour-related disputes follow a similar pattern. Women often face greater danger than men. Families usually accuse daughters of bringing shame to the household because they chose their own partners.

Some families keep women under constant surveillance. Others try to force them into arranged marriages. In extreme cases, families confine women inside their homes or threaten them with violence.

Several petitions filed before courts in 2026 also alleged that police officers in the couples’ home districts either ignored their complaints or informed their families about their whereabouts. Such allegations make many couples lose confidence in local law enforcement.

That is one reason many of them seek direct protection from the High Court instead of relying only on local police.

India Is Changing, but Old Beliefs Still Shape Many Families

The recent Delhi High Court cases highlight a larger social change taking place across India.

Many young Indians today expect to choose their own partners. Better education, greater financial independence, especially among women, and wider access to social media have changed how many people view relationships and marriage.

Inter-caste and interfaith relationships have become more common in cities. Similar changes have also started to appear in many Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities.

However, social attitudes have not changed at the same pace everywhere. Many families still believe that marriage is a decision for the entire family rather than the individual. In some communities, caste, religion and social status continue to influence whom a person can marry.

For many parents, a son or daughter choosing a partner without family approval is not just a personal decision. They see it as a challenge to family honour and long-standing traditions.

What India Still Needs

The repeated protection petitions before the Delhi High Court point to several policy gaps that governments have yet to address.

A National Law Against Honour Crimes

India still does not have a separate national law that specifically criminalises honour-based violence.

The Law Commission has recommended such legislation in the past, but Parliament has not enacted a nationwide law.

A dedicated legal framework could help investigators identify honour-based crimes more accurately and ensure stronger accountability.

Full Implementation of the Shakti Vahini Judgment

In 2018, the Supreme Court directed states to establish safe houses, special police units and 24-hour helplines for couples facing threats.

Many states have implemented these directions only partially.

A nationwide review of compliance could help identify gaps and ensure that every state follows the Supreme Court’s instructions.

Better Police Training and Accountability

Several petitions filed in recent years have alleged police inaction or lack of timely assistance.

Some couples have also claimed that local officials shared their location with family members instead of protecting them.

Every police officer has a constitutional duty to protect citizens, regardless of social pressure or family objections.

Authorities must investigate complaints against officers who fail to perform that duty and hold them accountable wherever necessary.

Easier Access to Legal Aid

Many young couples who seek protection have limited financial resources.

They often struggle to hire lawyers or understand complex legal procedures.

Expanding legal aid services for couples facing family-based threats could help more people access constitutional protections without unnecessary delays.

Civil society organisations, legal services authorities and state governments can all play an important role in closing this gap.