Smriti Saniya vs. State of Uttar Pradesh: Landmark Allahabad High Court Judgment | Delhi Law Firm Analysis
Welcome to Delhi Law Firm’s comprehensive legal analysis. In this post, we present and explain in clear, accessible English the significant judgment delivered by Allahabad High Court in the case of Smriti Saniya versus State of Uttar Pradesh. This decision impacts not only individual liberty but also crucial issues such as age determination, police conduct, and the role of child-welfare authorities.
Background of the Case: Key Facts
Smriti Saniya and Vikas had been in a consensual romantic relationship for around four years. They wanted to marry, but Saniya’s family vehemently opposed it. In 2023, the family filed an FIR accusing Vikas of abduction and other serious offenses. However, in court, Saniya clearly stated that she had gone with Vikas out of her own free will.
Vikas was arrested and jailed, but later released on bail after the court evaluated the evidence and Saniya’s statements. After some time, Saniya returned to her parents’ home. But in 2025 the situation took a serious turn: on 29 June 2025, her father filed a second FIR, again alleging that Vikas had misled the “minor” girl and taken her away forcibly.
This second FIR escalated the matter. The police, invoking custody and medical examination procedures, intervened. Countering these actions, a Habeas Corpus petition was filed — which ultimately led the matter to Allahabad High Court.
The Central Question: Is Saniya a Minor or an Adult?
At the heart of the controversy was her age. According to school records submitted by the police, her date of birth was 25 April 2009 — implying she was a minor. But the court observed that this date had been recorded based solely on information from her Aadhar (identity) card, and that she had been admitted directly to class 5.
Because the Aadhar-based date of birth lacked verification through any credible document, and given the questionable reliability of the school record, the court found both sources unacceptable. No official birth certificate from municipal or local authorities was presented either. Thus, the only viable and reliable option left was a medical age determination.
Medical Age Estimation: Ossification & Dental Examination
The court ordered medical tests — ossification (bone-age) assessment and dental examination. Both reports concluded that her age was approximately 18 years. In medical jurisprudence, a margin of error of up to two years is typically allowed; in such cases, courts generally favor the benefit of doubt towards the person concerned.
On this basis, the court declared that Saniya was legally an adult — fully capable of making her own decisions. This determination transformed the entire legal landscape of the case.
Adult’s Autonomy and the Principle of Consent
When asked by the court where she wished to stay and with whom, Saniya unambiguously replied that she did not want to return to her parents’ home; she wanted to live with Vikas and wished to marry him. The court emphasized that once a person is declared an adult, her clear and voluntary choice must prevail — regardless of parental objections, societal pressures, or institutional interference.
Because the Habeas Corpus petition was not a matter of marriage validity but one concerning unlawful detention and deprivation of liberty, the court’s only concern was whether her fundamental right to freedom had been violated. Once it confirmed she was an adult, and had expressed her free will, the decision became straightforward.
Criticism of Police & Child Welfare Committee Conduct
The court did not spare criticism for the police and the child-welfare authorities. Despite a prior order restraining arbitrary custody or detention, the police took her into “custody”, immediately subjected her to medical tests, and presented her before the Child Welfare Committee, which — without any serious deliberation — ordered her placement in a protection home.
The court held this to be an unlawful exercise of state power. It ruled that no one — whether police, social workers, or state agencies — can forcibly confine an adult against her will in a protection home purely because of family objections or societal pressure.
Court’s Final Order: Freedom and Fundamental Rights Upheld
Having established that Saniya was an adult, the court ordered her immediate release from the protection home and permitted her to go wherever she wished. The judgment reaffirmed that an adult’s right to choose her residence and partner is protected under the constitution. No external authority — whether family, police, or state entity — may interfere with that decision.
Legal Principles Emerging from the Judgment
- An adult’s free will and consent are paramount.
- Identity cards like Aadhar are not conclusive proof of age in absence of verified records.
- School enrollment records must be corroborated by reliable documentary evidence to be credible.
- Medical age estimation (when properly conducted) remains the most reliable method for age determination.
- Forcible custody or placement of an adult by police or welfare authorities based solely on family objections is unconstitutional.
- Protection home orders must not violate the fundamental right to freedom of an adult individual.
Wider Impact: What This Means for Love Marriages and Habeas Corpus Cases Nationwide
This landmark ruling offers hope to many young adults across India — especially those who face societal or familial opposition purely on the basis of alleged “minority”. It establishes that if a person is medically examined and declared to be an adult, her autonomous choices regarding companionship, residence, and marriage must be respected.
Going forward, this judgment will serve as a guiding precedent in cases involving love marriages, age-disputes, custodial interventions, and challenges under Habeas Corpus — strengthening the constitutional protection of individual liberty and personal dignity.
How Delhi Law Firm Can Help You
If you or someone you know is facing similar legal issues — age determination, love marriage disputes, FIRs, unlawful custody, child-welfare committee interference, or need for Habeas Corpus or court-marriage guidance — Delhi Law Firm is here to provide expert legal support.
We handle matters across all Indian jurisdictions — High Courts, Supreme Court, state courts — with utmost dedication and confidentiality.
Contact Us
For detailed consultation and legal assistance, please visit our portal:
https://delhilawfirm.news
Helpline: 9990649999, 9999889091
Services include Court Marriage, Love Marriage, Age Determination, Legal Advice — we are here for you.