Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirms autonomy of adult women, criticises paternalistic control
Reaffirming the constitutional rights of adult women to autonomy, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that their identity and freedom are not defined by paternal authority or societal expectations.
“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”, Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul asserted, while rejecting a habeas corpus plea filed by a father seeking custody of his 30-year-old daughter, who had chosen to live independently.
The father’s arguments were rooted in social concerns and the potential repercussions of his daughter’s choice. Addressing broader issue of personal freedom and autonomy while touching on fundamental constitutional principles regarding individual rights, Justice Kaul asserted the judiciary’s role was not to enforce social norms or moral judgments but to uphold constitutional principles. “The role of the court is not to enforce social norms or morality but to uphold the principles of constitutional morality,” the Bench observed.
Referring to arguments suggesting that a father’s custodial rights could override an adult woman’s choices, Justice Kaul asserted: “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.”
Justice Kaul added the writ of habeas corpus was one of the most powerful tools designed to protect individual liberty against illegal detention. Its core object was to ensure that no person was deprived of freedom without legitimate cause. “When a petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is brought before the court, it is tasked with examining whether the alleged detainee has been illegally detained. The ambit of this writ is confined strictly to assessing the legality of the detention, and thus, the court must act within this defined scope,” the Bench added
The court observed once the alleged detainee – a fully mature adult capable of making her own decisions – had clearly expressed her desire to live independently, the court cannot override her will. The writ of habeas corpus was a constitutional mechanism to protect the personal liberty of an individual. The court was constitutionally bound to uphold the 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.”
