Latest Delhi – The Supreme Court of India today declined to intervene in the case of a young couple seeking protection from potential “honor killing” due to their interfaith relationship. The court directed the couple to first approach a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The matter was brought before a bench comprising Chief Justice S.K. Kaul, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi by advocate Harvinder Chaudhary. Chaudhary informed the court that she had encountered the couple within the Supreme Court premises, specifically in the parking area.
According to Chaudhary, the couple had mistakenly believed they could marry at the Supreme Court and sought refuge with the Chief Justice. The woman is from Bihar, and the man is from Uttar Pradesh, and both have reportedly received threats to their lives from their families due to their relationship. Chaudhary stated the woman had been threatened with being hanged from a tree by her parents.
Chaudhary further alleged that when the couple sought assistance at the Tilak Marg police station in New Delhi, they were met not with assist, but with an attempt at detention. “I took them with two other lawyers—Atul Kumar Yadav and Triparri Chopra. All three of us went to the Tilak Marg police station… it was shocking. The police tried to stop us and too tried to detain the girl and boy who had come for protection. I told the police to arrest me, but I would not exit a young girl in the police station,” she recounted to the court.
Chief Justice Kaul inquired why the couple had come to Delhi. Chaudhary explained that the couple’s decision was influenced by social media content, specifically reels, which led them to believe that marriages could be solemnized at the Supreme Court and that protection could be obtained from the Chief Justice. “They watch reels, they thought marriages happen in the Supreme Court and one goes to the Chief Justice’s house… it’s a strange perception created by social media,” she said.
The Chief Justice responded by advising Chaudhary to pursue the matter through Article 226 in the appropriate High Court, cautioning against what he termed as “forum shopping.” Chaudhary assured the court that they would comply and also highlighted the lack of adequate shelter homes or security provisions for couples fleeing potential violence.
Chief Justice Kaul acknowledged the complexities of such cases, noting that they are not always straightforward and can involve situations where the man is already married with children. The bench stated that the High Court would consider the petitioners’ right to personal liberty when deciding on the issue of their security.
“Go to the High Court, we are confident that the High Court will consider this today itself. We will inform the Registrar Judicial of the High Court,” Chief Justice Kaul concluded. The court did not issue any immediate orders for the couple’s protection beyond directing them to the High Court.