# Niresh Kumar Srivastava & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 505
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-04-03
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16299 of 2012
- **Bench:** Amitava Lala, P.K.S. Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/niresh-kumar-srivastava-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-42440
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-21-Protection
of person and property-inter-religion
marriage-even live in relationship-in 21st
century-considering honour killing-local
police be more alert in protection of
three
person
or
property-necessary
direction issued.

Held:Para-4
From
the
aforesaid
three
judgments,
precisely we get three relevant points.
Firstly, if one is sui juris, no fetter can be
placed upon choice of the person with whom
she is to stay nor any one can restrict her.
Secondly, any person cannot give threats
or commit or instigate the acts of
violence and cannot harass the adult
person who undergoes inter-caste or
inter-religion marriage. Administration/
policy authorities can be directed to see
to it so that the couple, upon being
major, should not be harassed by any
one. Thirdly, live-in relationship between
two consenting adults of heterogenic sex
does not amount to any offence. It will
not be unnecessary to say that there are
many States in our country where
castism or religionism is so deep-rooted
even in the 21st Century that one can go
to the extent of honour killing upon
being forgetful that their interference
might cause unhappiness in the life of
their children. Such type of activities are
totally in violation of the preamble of the
Constitution of India in connection with
human dignity of an individual. The
country is one and it is pluralistic in
nature. No secular idea can be ignored.
No person shall be deprived of his life and
personal liberty except according to the
procedure established by law as per Article
21 of the Constitution of India. Liberty and
reasonable restriction are inbuilt in such
Article.

Case Law Discussed:
(1976) 3 SCC 234; (2006) 5 SCC 475; (2010)5
SCC 600.

## Text

1 All] Niresh Kumar Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

505
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMITAVA LALA, J.
THE HON'BLE P.K.S. BAGHEL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16299 of 2012

Niresh Kumar Srivastava & Anr. Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ............Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri S.P. Pandey, Sri R.N. Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Akhileshwar Singh, S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.-21-Protection
of person and property-inter-religion
marriage-even live in relationship-in 21st
century-considering honour killing-local
police be more alert in protection of
three
person
or
property-necessary
direction issued.

Held:Para-4
From
the
aforesaid
three
judgments,
precisely we get three relevant points.
Firstly, if one is sui juris, no fetter can be
placed upon choice of the person with whom
she is to stay nor any one can restrict her.
Secondly, any person cannot give threats
or commit or instigate the acts of
violence and cannot harass the adult
person who undergoes inter-caste or
inter-religion marriage. Administration/
policy authorities can be directed to see
to it so that the couple, upon being
major, should not be harassed by any
one. Thirdly, live-in relationship between
two consenting adults of heterogenic sex
does not amount to any offence. It will
not be unnecessary to say that there are
many States in our country where
castism or religionism is so deep-rooted
even in the 21st Century that one can go
to the extent of honour killing upon
being forgetful that their interference
might cause unhappiness in the life of
their children. Such type of activities are
totally in violation of the preamble of the
Constitution of India in connection with
human dignity of an individual. The
country is one and it is pluralistic in
nature. No secular idea can be ignored.
No person shall be deprived of his life and
personal liberty except according to the
procedure established by law as per Article
21 of the Constitution of India. Liberty and
reasonable restriction are inbuilt in such
Article.

Case Law Discussed:
(1976) 3 SCC 234; (2006) 5 SCC 475; (2010)5
SCC 600.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amitava Lala, J.)

Amitava Lala, J.--The present writ
petition has been filed by the father-inlaw and daughter-in-law for protection of
their life and property, since there is
serious threat for their inter religion
marriage. Presently, the boy is in
Germany and he will be able to come to
India only in the month of May, 2012 for
identification, if necessary, before the Court.

1.

The
Supreme
Court
has
considered such type of issue repeatedly
in the case of Gian Devi v. Supdt., Nari
Niketan, Delhi, (1976) 3 SCC 234, at
page 235 :

"Whatever may be the date of birth
of the petitioner, the fact remains that she
is at present more than 18 years of age. As
the petitioner is sui juris no fetters can be
placed upon her choice of the person with
whom she is to stay, nor can any
restriction be imposed regarding the place
where she should stay. The court or the
relatives of the petitioner can also not
substitute their opinion or preference for
that of the petitioner in such a matter".
506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Subsequently, the Supreme Court
has held in Lata Singh v. State of U.P.,
(2006) 5 SCC 475, at page 480 :

"This is a free and democratic
country, and once a person becomes a
major he or she can marry whosoever
he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or
girl do not approve of such inter-caste or
inter-religious marriage the maximum
they can do is that they can cut-off social
relations with the son or the daughter, but
they cannot give threats or commit or
instigate acts of violence and cannot
harass the person who undergoes such
inter-caste or inter-religious marriage.
We,
therefore,
direct
that
the
administration/police
authorities
throughout the country will see to it that if
any boy or girl who is a major undergoes
inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a
woman or man who is a major, the couple is
not harassed by anyone nor subjected to
threats or acts of violence, and anyone who
gives such threats or harasses or commits acts
of violence either himself or at his instigation,
is taken to task by instituting criminal
proceedings by the police against such
persons and further stern action is taken
against such persons as provided by law".

3. Such judgments were again
followed by the three judges bench in S.
Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC
600, at page 614 :

"31. ............................ At this juncture,
we may refer to the decision given by this
Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P., wherein
it was observed that a live-in relationship
between two consenting adults of heterogenic
sex does not amount to any offence (with the
obvious exception of "adultery"), even though
it may be perceived as immoral. A major girl
is free to marry anyone she likes or "live with
anyone she likes". In that case, the petitioner
was a woman who had married a man
belonging to another caste and had begun
cohabitation with him. The petitioner's brother
had filed a criminal complaint accusing her
husband of offences under Sections 366 and
368
IPC,
thereby
leading
to
the
commencement of trial proceedings. This
Court had entertained a writ petition and
granted relief by quashing the criminal trial.
Furthermore, the Court had noted that "no
offence was committed by any of the accused
and the whole criminal case in question is an
abuse of the process of the court".

4. From the aforesaid three
judgments, precisely we get three relevant
points. Firstly, if one is sui juris, no fetter
can be placed upon choice of the person
with whom she is to stay nor any one can
restrict her. Secondly, any person cannot
give threats or commit or instigate the
acts of violence and cannot harass the
adult person who undergoes inter-caste or
inter-religion marriage. Administration/
policy authorities can be directed to see to
it so that the couple, upon being major,
should not be harassed by any one.
Thirdly, live-in relationship between two
consenting adults of heterogenic sex does
not amount to any offence. It will not be
unnecessary to say that there are many
States in our country where castism or
religionism is so deep-rooted even in the
21st Century that one can go to the extent of
honour killing upon being forgetful that
their interference might cause unhappiness
in the life of their children. Such type of
activities are totally in violation of the
preamble of the Constitution of India in
connection with human dignity of an
individual. The country is one and it is
pluralistic in nature. No secular idea can be
ignored. No person shall be deprived of his
life and personal liberty except according to
1 All] Dr. Mahendra Shankar Singh & Anr. Vs. The Chancellor, University of Allahabad & Ors.

507
the procedure established by law as per
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Liberty and reasonable restriction are inbuilt
in such Article.

5.

Against
this
background,
according to us, there should not be any
deprivation of the interests of any adult
particularly an adult girl in connection
with her living. Administration/police
authorities are directed to protect their
interest to that extent.

6. It is made clear that the boy and the
girl are not debarred from proceeding
before the appropriate Court of law in case
of any exigency. Generally, the police and
the administration will be much more alert
and sensitive in dealing with such type of
issues. Repeated awareness programme is
needed to be made to uproot the social evil
and minimise the incidents.

7. With the above observations, the
writ petition is disposed of on contest at
the stage of admission.

8. However, no order is passed as to
costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.03.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16685 of 2007

Dr. Mahendra Shankar Singh & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
The Chancellor, University of Allahabad
& Ors. ......Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Manu Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.. Sri Gautam Baghel,
Sri Ram Gopal Tripathi,Sri V.K. Singh

State
Universities
Act,
1973-Section
31(3)(c)
Regularization-petitioner
working as part-time lecturer-rejected
by executive council-appointment as
guest lecturer-payment of honorarium
per lecture basis-not contemplated in
Act-despite of being aware-petitioner
not applied for regular appointment-not
can challenge the selection process-no
mandamus can be issued to university
contrary to law.

Held: Para-21
In our opinion, the Act No.26 of 2005
does not admit of any method of
regularization and the University cannot
be mandated to act contrary to law. It is
not within the domain of the University
to resort to any method of regularization
of back-door appointments. The Apex
Court in the case of State of Karnataka &
Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors reported in 2006
(4) SC 420 has specifically prohibited
regularization of persons, who have been
appointed through back-door in violation
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Case Law Discussed:
W.P. No. 52001 of 2000; 2007(1) ADJ 526; W.P.
No. 29241 of 2001; (2010) 9 SCC 247; 2006(4) SC
420; 2014 Law Suit (S.C.) 90.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manu Khare, Advocate
on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Petitioners, who are two in
number seeks a writ of mandamus
directing the University to take a decision
in
accordance
with
the
orders
of
Chancellor dated 20.01.2005 and to quash
the appointment of two Lecturers in
pursuance
to
Advertisement
dated