Adult Woman Has Right To Live Freely & Make Her Own Choices: Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses Father's Habeas Corpus Petition

A habeas corpus petition was filed by a father seeking the release of his daughter from what he alleged to be illegal custody by a man. In the case, the 30-year-old woman expressed her desire to live independently, stating that she did not wish to return either to her father’s home or her husband’s residence due to experiences of violence at both places.

A Bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul responded by emphasizing that such arguments infringe upon the constitutional rights of equality and personal liberty. The Court said, “It is imperative to emphasize that once the alleged detenue, who is a fully mature adult, capable of making her own decisions, has clearly expressed her desire to live independently, this Court cannot override her will. The Writ of Habeas Corpus is a constitutional mechanism to protect the personal liberty of an individual, and the Court is constitutionally bound to uphold this right. It cannot, and should not, compel an adult to return to the custody of another, even if that person is a well-meaning parent.”

Advocate Malkit Kaur appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Shiva Khurmi appeared for the Respondents.

The Court further criticized the notion that a father would be a more suitable custodian for an adult woman than she herself, calling it an outdated perspective that conflicts with constitutional guarantees of personal liberty.

“It is crucial to reaffirm that an adult woman, like any other citizen, possesses the right to be treated as an independent and autonomous individual, free from coercion and undue influence.,” the Court stated.

The Court highlighted, “the identity and autonomy of an adult woman are not defined by her relationships or familial obligations. The Constitution safeguards her right to live freely and make her own choices, without external interference. The notion that her father, or anyone else, can impose their will upon her based on a perceived social role is a direct affront to the right of equality and personal liberty enshrined in our constitution.”

Thus, the Court ruled that while the father's concerns are understandable, they cannot override the woman's constitutional rights to personal liberty. The Court had previously instructed the police to record the woman's statement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Chandigarh and to ensure her protection.

The affirmed its decision stating that the essence of the writ of habeas corpus is to uphold individual freedom and autonomy, ensuring that no one is detained against their will without lawful cause.

Cause Title: X v. State of Punjab & Ors., [2024:PHHC:110372]

Appearance:

Respondents: Advocates Shiva Khurmi, Manish Bansal and Shubam Mangla