In a ruling delivered on September 18, 2026, the Delhi High Court ordered police protection for a 26-year-old advocate who says her parents and relatives are threatening to confine and force her into a marriage she does not want. The case, Sanchita Kumari v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., W.P.(CRL) 2917/2026, is a reminder that Article 21 of the Constitution — the right to life and personal liberty — does not stop at the courtroom door.

For anyone who has ever been told by family that “it’s for your own good,” the order matters. It says the state must step in when an adult’s personal choices are under siege. Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court made that clear.

What the petition asked for

Sanchita Kumari, enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. She asked the court to direct the police to protect her life, liberty, and dignity from threats, coercion, intimidation, harassment, physical harm, or unlawful interference by her parents and other relatives — respondent nos. 2 to 5.

She also asked the court to make sure she is not forcibly taken to her parental home or compelled to live with her parents against her wishes. She wanted the police to take preventive and protective measures whenever she reports a threat.

After facing constant pressure, she moved out to Uttam Nagar to live on her own. The threats, according to her petition, did not stop.

What the Delhi High Court ordered in W.P.(CRL) 2917/2026

The court issued notice to the respondents. The Additional Standing Counsel accepted notice and pointed out that the petitioner’s address falls under the jurisdiction of PS Uttam Nagar.

Justice Banerjee then gave her direct access to named police officers. She can contact SHO Vikas Rana and Head Constables Kailash, Naresh, and Jitender of PS Uttam Nagar if and when the need arises. The order specifies their phone numbers. This is unusual. Courts rarely list individual officer contacts in open orders.

The SHO and the concerned head or beat constables must “take all possible steps to provide adequate assistance and protection” to her, in accordance with law, whenever needed.

The court also addressed what happens if she moves again. If she chooses to live in another police station’s jurisdiction, she must inform the SHO there within three days of shifting and provide her full address. That SHO must also provide protection as needed.

The petition and the pending application were disposed of in these terms.

“Keeping in view the facts and circumstances involved, especially to protect the fundamental right to life and liberty of the petitioner, who, though being a grown up adult is allegedly being subjected to force in matters purely of her personal choice…” — Justice Saurabh Banerjee, Delhi High Court, September 18, 2026.

Why this order matters beyond one case

Article 21 has long been read to include the right to make personal choices — whom to marry, where to live, how to live. When an adult woman says her family is using threats and confinement to control those choices, the police have a constitutional duty to act. This order makes that duty concrete.

It also creates a paper trail. Naming officers and giving phone numbers means the petitioner does not have to navigate a police station’s front desk while she is under pressure. She can call directly. That is a practical safeguard, not just a legal formality.

And the three-day reporting requirement if she moves gives the protective net a way to follow her. Without that, a change of address would leave her outside the reach of the order.

The case is a live example of how constitutional rights are enforced — not through grand declarations alone, but through specific, enforceable directions to the state’s coercive arms.

For a woman advocate who already knows the law, the order confirms that the law can work for her too.

For others in similar situations — those without a law degree, without the means to file a writ — the order is a signal: the Delhi High Court will treat forced marriage threats against an adult as a violation of Article 21, not a private family matter.

That is the holding. And it is now on record.

Case: Sanchita Kumari v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., W.P.(CRL) 2917/2026, Delhi High Court, order dated September 18, 2026 (Justice Saurabh Banerjee).