Beyond Family, Caste And Consent: What The Delhi High Court’s Ruling Signals

In a ruling that underscores the tension between individual rights and societal norms, the Delhi High Court on Friday affirmed that consenting adults do not require parental or societal approval to choose their life partners, barring even family interference in such decisions.

The judgment, was delivered in a case where a woman's family opposed her union and allegedly confined her, draws on constitutional protections under Articles 21 and 19, emphasising personal liberty and autonomy. It directs authorities to provide protection to the couple, highlighting the court's role in shielding relationships from external pressures.

This verdict arrives amid India's evolving social landscape, where traditional views on marriage, rooted in caste, religion, and family oversight, are increasingly challenged by urbanisation, education, and global influences. Over the past decade, younger generations have pushed boundaries, with inter-caste and inter-faith unions rising, as per surveys from the National Family Health Survey, reflecting a shift toward choice-based partnerships.

Social media and dating apps have amplified this trend, fostering connections beyond community confines, while economic independence among women has reduced reliance on familial approval.

Progressive Precedents and Persistent Pushback

Yet, progress remains uneven. Courts have delivered progressive rulings, such as the Supreme Court's 2018 decriminalisation of homosexuality in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, which expanded privacy rights, or the 2017 Hadiya case affirming adult women's right to convert and marry freely. These have empowered marginalised groups, including LGBTQ+ individuals seeking marriage equality, as petitions continue in higher courts.

The Allahabad High Court in January 2021 struck down the mandatory one-month public notice requirement under the Special Marriage Act for interfaith couples, easing bureaucratic hurdles that often exposed them to threats. In August 2021, the Gujarat High Court ordered the release of an interfaith couple detained by police, criticising overzealous enforcement and affirming their right to cohabit without interference.

In June 2025, the Allahabad High Court granted police protection to an interfaith couple who apprehended honour-based violence from their families, stating that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 obligates the state to protect consenting adults from such threats.

But on the other hand equally regressive judgments persist, that prioritise community sentiments over individual rights, often citing cultural preservation. In rural areas, khap panchayats still enforce rigid norms, leading to violence against couples defying traditions. Urban India, too, grapples with backlash, with political and media narratives such as “love jihad” increasingly framing inter-faith relationships as sites of suspicion.

For instance, in 2022, the Madras High Court denied registration of a self-respect marriage involving an inter-religious couple, holding that Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act applies only where both parties are Hindus, and observing that interfaith couples must resort to the Special Marriage Act.

In January 2024, the Allahabad High Court dismissed petitions by several interfaith couples seeking police protection, holding that relief could not be granted where the couples had not complied with procedural requirements under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

Most notably, the Supreme Court in October 2023 declined to legalise same-sex marriages in Supriyo v. Union of India, deferring the issue to Parliament and leaving queer couples without immediate recognition of their unions despite ongoing petitions. Adding to this, in April 2024, the Supreme Court in Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal held that a marriage certificate cannot substitute for solemnisation through essential Hindu rites under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, reiterating that a Hindu marriage is completed through prescribed ceremonies rather than registration alone.

As society navigates these changes, the judiciary's interventions reveal a broader struggle: balancing constitutional ideals with deeply entrenched customs. This latest ruling may signal a firmer stance on autonomy, but implementation lags, with many couples still facing threats. The question lingers, will legal affirmations translate into cultural acceptance, or remain contested terrain?

Radical Love, Judicial Limits and the Cultural Crossroads

The May 11, 2023, issue of Outlook Magazine placed the Supreme Court's live-streamed hearings on same-sex marriage at its core, alongside critiques of encounter killings and celibacy politics. The introduction examined how police encounters, framed as "justice" in media and public discourse, had surged, with examples like Atiq Ahmed's assassination broadcast live, raising questions about vigilantism eroding the rule of law and media ethics.

The cover story, "How Far Will the Courts Go?" by Ramya Maddali, chronicled the petitions under the Special Marriage Act. It detailed arguments from advocates: Mukul Rohatgi on legislative drafts from decades ago not overriding constitutional entitlements; Menaka Guruswamy describing a "bouquet of rights" encompassing adoption, inheritance, joint banking, and wills; and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's counter that the issue was "urban elitist" and belonged to Parliament.

Opposition included the Bar Council of India's resolution, Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind's view of it as Western imposition, and NCPCR's stance against adoption rights for same-sex couples. The article countered with petitioners like Kajal (a Dalit bakery assistant from Punjab) and Bhavna (her OBC partner from Haryana), emphasising protections for non-elite queer couples. It traced the legal timeline from 1861 to 2023, including decriminalisation milestones, and pondered creating a non-religious marriage framework.

Related pieces included "Personal is Legal" on same-sex marriage advancing social equality; "How Far and No Further?" arguing queer communities should not be denied marriage rights; "We're Queer, We're Tired" on queer mental health; "Manicured Media" criticising sensational encounter coverage; "Politics of Celibacy" connecting abstinence, virility, and power (linked to the Dalai Lama incident); "A Crumbling Edifice" on cultural shifts in Shivamogga district; and an interview with Vinod Kumar Shukla on class and wealth themes in his writing.

The August 11, 2023, issue, themed "Radical Love," explored non-normative relationships amid shifting intimacy norms. It opened with Nitin Sethi's "A Durable Settlement" on Manipur's violence: over 100 deaths, thousands displaced in the Kuki-Meitei conflict, driven by political machinations, armed groups sharing violence licences with the state, Delhi's hegemonic push through the BJP, and factors like narcotics, gun-running, and Myanmar spillover. Sethi stressed pragmatic reconciliation over pure justice, potentially years or a decade, while noting the Union's lack of accountability and his personal ties to Manipur, ending in shared anxiety and prayer.

The "Radical Love" section addressed diverse identities like polyamory, inter-sexual, neuro-sexual, kink-positive, asexual, greyssexual, demisexual, allosexual, and panAroAce.

Key articles included "Journey of Many Desires" by Arundhati Ghosh on polyamory struggles, stigma, and redefining relationships; "Spectrum of Connections" by Duha on varied relational forms; "Eternally in Love" by Pragya Vats on enduring bonds; "Let's Talk About Sex" by Pruthu Parab on open sex discussions; "Unbounded Intimacy" by Srinidhi Prahlad on altered, less patriarchal relationships; and "Disabled Mindsets" by Abhishek Anicca on neuro-diverse and disabled perspectives in intimacy.

Additional pieces covered asexual experiences of love without sexual attraction "Beyond the Body" and broader liberation narratives.

These issues reflected Outlook's consistent lens on evolving personal freedoms against structural violence and cultural constraints.