An unacceptable verdict in the constitutional sense
Context:
The judgement by the Allahabad High Court in Kiran Rawat vs. State of UP has recently; declined the prayer by an interfaith couple in a live-in relationship for protection from police harassment has caught national attention.
Why was the judgement unacceptable in the constitutional sense?
First, the court is ostensibly carried away by the notions of conventional social morality rather than the constitutional principles on individual autonomy and personal liberty.
Second, in the process, the court also discarded several Supreme Court judgments, even after citing them, by giving untenable reasons.
Third, the High Court travelled much beyond the brief and relied on personal laws on marriage which were irrelevant.
What was wrong with the judgement?
Theological court- High Court acted as a theological court, as if the very idea of individual liberty and autonomy are alien to the writ jurisdiction.
Social Orthodoxy-The verdict shows a clear inclination towards social orthodoxy and religious revivalism.
Reiterated the traditional beliefs- In the guise of constitutional adjudication, the court only tried to reiterate the traditional beliefs on marriage and morals.
What should have been done?
Upheld the SC verdicts- High Court should have regarded the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court on questions of fundamental rights.
Endorsed Fundamental Right- High Court should have sought further particulars if required and endorsed the couple’s fundamental right, without conducting an unwanted and irrelevant survey of the personal laws on marriage.
Constitutional tenets should dominate- Moral lessons of personal laws should not supersede the constitutional tenets as doing so will lead to serious adjudicatory mishap.