Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

48. In (1994) 6 SCC 632 R. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamilnadu , the Supreme Court held that "the right to privacy was implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21 and that a citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters".

49. The Supreme Court has declared that though our Constitution did not refer the right to privacy expressly, still it can be traced from the right to life in Article 21. In (1964) 1 SCR 332 Kharak Singh vs. State of U.P., it has been held that 'right to privacy' was part of right to life in Article 21.

60. It needs no elaboration that the right to life under Article 21 encompasses protection of a person's dignity, autonomy and privacy. Section 2(i)(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1943 defines `human rights' as the 'rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by the courts in India. The rights to life, liberty and dignity thus stand statutorily recognised as well in the above legislation as entitled to protection and enforceable by judicial process.

61. The right to marriage encapsulates the right to privacy, dignity, liberty and self-fulfilment of the aspirations of individuals, which stand recognised as essential concomitants of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also the object, spirit and intendment of the several laws relating to marriage. The social importance of the family unit as a social institution between persons of opposite sexes also stands emphasised in several judgments. Personal liberty under Article 21 would take into its ambit the right to marry, cohabit and socialise with spouse and other members of family. Without such right and opportunity the `family' as a unit would be meaningless and marriage would be an empty shell. Thus the claimed right of the petitioner to marriage and cohabitation with her family, which is involved in the instant case, is an essential part of her fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The challenge by the petitioner has to be examined in the context of the complained violation of this basic right. Denial of the application for resignation - Whether violates the petitioner's privacy & dignity and tantamounts to infringement of any right of the petitioner.

107. The reasons in the impugned order are certainly not valid and fail to consider the relevant facts.

108. The impugned order in the instant case raises yet another important aspect on the right to life of the petitioner. Its impact on the dignity and privacy, integral and essential components of the right to life of the petitioner require to be examined.

109. Marriage and issues relating thereto are certainly matters involving the core issues of the privacy and dignity of the individual concerned which are essentials of the fundamental right to life. We find that the impugned order on the other hand has scrutinized the divorce petition and reached a conclusion on the merits of the allegations made therein without even hearing the petitioner's side on the allegations. The observations in the order would only add to the differences between the parties.