Rajasthan High Court| Police may charge fee from couple seeking police protection if the income is more than taxable income

Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court: Sameer Jain J. granted police protection and directed the State authorities to charge an appropriate fee from the couple seeking police protection before the Court, if the income is found to be more than the taxable income under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

A couple got married which was not approved by their respective family and relatives and apprehending threat to life, they filed for police protection at their residence and place of work.

The Court noted that the State has a duty to protect the life and liberty of the citizens. The petitioners are adult citizens who have a right to choose their partners. Thus, society cannot determine how individuals live their lives, especially when they are major, irrespective of the fact that the relation between two major individuals may be termed as unsocial. Thus, life and personal liberty of the individuals has to be protected except according to procedure established by law, as mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

It was also noted that as per Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 every police officer is duty bound to protect the life and liberty of the citizens.

The Court held “It would be the duty of the said authority to ensure the safety and security of the petitioners, for which he may take such suitable measures as found necessary in accordance with law.”

The Court observed that if the petitioner’s income is more than the taxable income under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Superintendent of Police after considering the financial aspect may charge appropriate fee from them as specified in law if financial hardship is not the case.

[Pooja Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 1059, decided on 21-06-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Bharat Yadav, Advocate, for the Petitioner;

Ghanshyam Singh Rathore, Advocate, for State.


*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.