Moola Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2026
The right to marry forms an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Judgement Details
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
17 July 2026
Judges
Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati & Justice Praveer Bhatnagar
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The applicant was convicted under Sections 302, 201 and 404 IPC and had remained in custody since 16 February 2017.
-
After satisfying the eligibility requirements, he was shifted to the Open Air Camp, Mandor, Jodhpur.
-
The applicant sought permission from the Rajasthan High Court to solemnise his marriage with Seema, another convict who had already been released on bail.
-
It was submitted that permitting the marriage would promote the applicant's rehabilitation and reformation and enable the couple to begin a settled family life.
-
The Public Prosecutors produced a report stating that the applicant and Seema were already in a live-in relationship and wished to solemnise their marriage.
-
The Court sought the State's stand on whether such a marriage could legally be conducted inside the Open Air Camp.
-
The State informed the Court that there was no legal impediment to such a marriage and referred to Section 11 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021.
-
The Court also relied upon its earlier judgment in Nand Lal v. State Department of Home while considering the application.
Issues
-
Whether a convicted prisoner lodged in an Open Air Camp has the right to solemnise his marriage under Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
-
Whether there exists any legal prohibition against conducting a marriage ceremony within an Open Air Camp?
-
Whether permitting the marriage would advance the
-
Whether the Court could impose reasonable conditions while permitting the marriage ceremony inside the Open Air Camp?
Judgement
-
The High Court held that the right to marry is an intrinsic facet of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
-
The Court observed that the institution of marriage is recognised across religions and cultures and constitutes a fundamental unit of society.
-
The Court accepted the State's submission that no legal impediment existed to conducting the marriage inside the Open Air Camp.
-
The Bench relied upon its earlier decision in Nand Lal v. State Department of Home while granting permission.
-
The applicant was permitted to solemnise his marriage within the Open Air Camp.
-
The Court directed that up to 21 family members, including persons performing the marriage rituals, would be permitted to enter the camp.
-
It further clarified that the prison authorities may allow additional guests depending upon their assessment and administrative convenience.
-
The applicant was directed to bear all expenses relating to the marriage ceremony.
Held
-
A convicted prisoner residing in an Open Air Camp can be permitted to solemnise marriage.
-
There was no legal prohibition against conducting the marriage within the Open Air Camp.
-
The marriage was permitted subject to reasonable conditions ensuring security, decorum, and sanctity.
Analysis
-
The judgment reinforces that prisoners continue to enjoy fundamental rights, except those lawfully curtailed by imprisonment.
-
The Court reaffirmed that the right to marry is protected under Article 21 as part of the broader concept of personal liberty.
-
The decision emphasizes the modern philosophy of rehabilitation and reformation rather than merely punitive incarceration.
-
The ruling recognises that preserving family relationships and enabling social reintegration are important objectives of the criminal justice system.
-
By permitting the marriage with appropriate safeguards, the Court balanced individual rights with prison administration and security.
-
The judgment also strengthens the recognition of human dignity and the constitutional rights of prisoners.