Rajasthan HC Permits Convicted Prisoner to Marry Fellow Convict Inside Open Air Camp, Cites Article 21
The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur held that solemnisation of marriage between two consenting adults is an intrinsic facet of Article 21 and directed authorities to permit the ceremony within the open air camp at Mandor.
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, comprising Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar, on 15 July 2026 allowed a suspended-sentence application moved by Moola Ram, a convict presently lodged at the open air camp in Mandor, Jodhpur, and directed the camp authorities to permit him to solemnise his marriage with Miss Seema — a fellow convict who has since been released on bail — within the premises of the open air camp. The bench held that the right to marry between two consenting adults is an intrinsic part of life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, a protection that does not dissolve upon conviction. The State raised no objection to the marriage taking place inside the camp.
The Applicant's Situation and the Proceeding Before the Court
Moola Ram, aged about 33 years and a resident of Adsinga Gaon Ki Dhani, district Nagaur, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jayal, Nagaur on 19 August 2023 in Sessions Case No. 46/2023 for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been in custody since 16 February 2017. After satisfying the eligibility conditions, he was admitted to the open air camp at Mandor, Jodhpur, following due recommendation by the relevant committee.
Moola Ram moved D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1159/2026 before the Division Bench. The core factual circumstance was that he wished to marry Miss Seema, another convict who is currently out on bail. A report submitted by the Public Prosecutors on 13 July 2026 confirmed that the two were already in a live-in relationship and that they wished to formalise their union through a marriage ceremony.
The Legal Arguments Advanced
Counsel for the applicant-appellant, Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati with Mr. Swapan Chauhan, drew the bench's attention to the Division Bench judgment in Nand Lal v. State Department of Home & Ors., D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 10/2022, decided on 5 April 2022 by this court. That judgment had dealt with the right of progeny for prisoners and was decided in favour of the petitioner, who was granted emergent parole for fifteen days.
In Nand Lal, the court had reasoned that the wife of a prisoner is deprived of her right to have progeny even though she has committed no offence and is not herself under any punishment. The judgment traversed religious and philosophical frameworks — drawing on Vedic references to the Garbhadhana sacrament, the cultural mandate in the Abrahamic traditions, and the Islamic Shariah's emphasis on the protection of lineage — before addressing the constitutional position.
On the constitutional side, the court in Nand Lal relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in D. Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, AIR 1974 SC 2092, which declared that convicts cannot be denied the protection of fundamental rights they otherwise possess merely because of their conviction. It also drew upon Jasvir Singh and Another v. State of Punjab, 2015 Cri LJ 2282, in which the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that “the right to procreation survives during incarceration” and falls squarely within Article 21, and directed the Punjab government to constitute a Jail Reforms Committee to frame a scheme for conjugal and family visits.
Counsel submitted that permitting Moola Ram to solemnise the marriage within the open air camp would advance rehabilitation and reformation and enable the couple to settle into a family life.
The State's Position and the Parole Rules
Public Prosecutors Mr. C.S. Ojha and Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore placed the report dated 13 July 2026 on record, confirming the live-in relationship and the couple's wish to celebrate the marriage. When the bench specifically asked whether such a marriage could lawfully take place within the open air camp, the Public Prosecutors responded in the affirmative.
They pointed to Section 11 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021, which provides for release on parole in emergent cases, and submitted that the indulgence sought by the applicant-appellant finds a place within the existing legal framework. The Public Prosecutors then requested that the matter be disposed of while granting liberty to conduct the marriage at the open air camp, subject to the decorum and sanctity of the premises being maintained.
The Court's Reasoning
The bench recorded a clear doctrinal position: solemnisation of marriage between two consenting adults is an intrinsic facet of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The institution of marriage, the court noted, finds recognition across all major religions and cultures and has constituted a foundational unit of society.
The bench applied the precedent in Nand Lal (supra) and took the State's fair submission — that it had no objection to the marriage being solemnised within the open air camp — into account. The court did not treat this as a case where any suspension of the sentence itself was required; rather, it disposed of the application by issuing specific directions to the camp authorities that would allow the marriage ceremony to take place within the camp's existing framework.
The bench's reasoning reflects the view that Article 21 does not draw a hard boundary at the prison gates. A convict's constitutional rights survive incarceration, and where the exercise of those rights does not compromise security, the State's penological interest must yield to a degree. The fact that the State itself conceded the lawfulness of the marriage within the camp made the court's task straightforward on this occasion.
Directions Issued
The bench issued four specific directions upon permitting the marriage:
Family members, up to 21 persons including those performing the rituals, may enter the open air camp for the ceremony during a time window to be modulated and finalised by the camp authorities. The authorities retain the discretion to permit a larger number of guests based on their own assessment.
The applicant-appellant is to inform the camp authorities of the date of marriage, and necessary permission is to be granted on that date.
The camp authorities may impose any conditions they consider necessary to maintain the decorum and sanctity of the open air camp.
All costs and expenses of the marriage ceremony are to be borne by the applicant-appellant.
Outcome
D.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 1159/2026 was disposed of on 15 July 2026 with the above directions. The bench, constituted by Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar, permitted Moola Ram to solemnise his marriage with Miss Seema within the premises of the open air camp at Mandor, Jodhpur, subject to the conditions to be imposed by the camp authorities.