A conspiracy against inter-faith love

Context

Judicial observations:

In the Hadiya case, the Supreme Court ruled:
- “The right to marry a person of one’s choice is integral to Article 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution”.
- “The choice of a partner whether within or outside marriage lies within the exclusive domain of each individual. Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable”.
- The Supreme Court held that a person’s right to choose a religion and marry is an intrinsic part of her meaningful existence.
- Neither the State nor “patriarchal supremacy” can interfere in her decision.
Allahabad High Court has said the right to live with a person of one’s choice is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty irrespective of religion.
The Courts and the Constitutional Courts in particular are enjoined to uphold the life and liberty of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Right to live with a person of his/her choice irrespective of religion professed by them, is intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty.
Interference in a personal relationship, would constitute a serious encroachment into the right to freedom of choice of the two individuals.

On caste-based marriages:

Supreme Court (SC) in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) ordered “stern action” against all those threatening or carrying out threats against couples.
The Supreme Court reiterated the fact that inter-caste marriages are not banned as per Hindu Marriage Act and are in the national interest. It is illegal to stop them in any way.
The SC in the khap panchayats case observed that no third party has the right to interfere between two consenting adults.
It said, “When two people get into wedlock, no one should interfere. Neither parents, society, khap or panchayat… no one at all,”.