Constitutional rights need not always be enforced: Madhya Pradesh HC

It is not always necessary to enjoy or enforce certain rights, even though they are guaranteed by the Constitution, the Madhya Pradesh high court observed recently.

It is not always necessary to enjoy or enforce certain rights, even though they are guaranteed by the Constitution, the Madhya Pradesh high court observed recently while hearing a petition seeking protection for a teenage couple, who are living together despite objections from their families.

HT Image

While an Indore bench of the high court on March 14 granted protection to the couple, both of whom are 19-years-old, citing a Supreme Court judgment, it expressed “concern on the choices, the youngsters are making these days”.

“Although there is much to ponder over this subject, but it must be remembered that even though certain rights have been conferred by the Constitution, it is not necessary to enjoy, and enforce them as well (sic),” a single bench of justice Subodh Abhyankar said.

The court noted that “India is not a country where the state provides any allowance to the unemployed and the uneducated ones”. “If you are not dependent on your parents, you have to earn your own and your partner’s livelihood and this would naturally obviate possibility of going to a school or a college, and if you get into this struggle of life at an early age by choice, not only your chances of enjoying the other opportunities of life are drastically affected but your acceptance in the society is also reduced,” it said.

The court raised concerns over the difficulties the woman may face, in case she turns pregnant at an early age, and advised caution. “It is far more difficult for a girl who can also become pregnant at an early age, leading to further complications in her life. Thus, discretion is advised while opting for such choices and enforcing such rights, as it is one thing to have the rights and another to enforce them,” it said.

The court, however, granted police protection citing a 2018 Supreme Court judgment which opined that a couple involving two adults have a right to live together, even if they are not legally eligible to marry.

“This court is inclined to allow the present petition as despite the fact that both the petitioners are 19-years-old only, and the petitioner no.2 has not even completed 21 years, since he is a major, he is entitled to reside as per his own will, and if he so decides, his choice needs to be protected from external forces,” justice Abhyankar said as he directed authorities to provide police protection to the couple.

In their petition, the couple said they are living together in Khargone but fear some action may be taken by the girl’s family. The boy works as a labourer, according to people aware of their details.

Appearing for the state, advocate Amay Bajaj opposed the couple’s plea for protection, saying the man had not attained the legal age of marriage. “It is submitted that no case for interference is made out. It is also submitted that if such protection is granted, it would not be in the larger interest of the society, and would promote promiscuousness in the society,” Bajaj said.