Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Punjab and Haryana High Court: In the present case, a young married couple filed a petition with the relevant authorities, requesting protection from the girl’s father and brother after apprehending threat to their lives, however, no action was taken. A Single Judge Bench of Parmod Goyal, J., held that in case protection is not awarded immediately on receipt of application made by citizen especially in case of marriage then the authorities shall be made liable for their inaction for not giving timely protection and seeking one or other report if any untoward incident takes place. Further, the Court stated that in protection related cases, authorities should act quickly, and matter should not be allowed to be tangled in bureaucratic administration.
The petitioners got married of their own free will and were apprehending threat to their lives from Respondents 4 and 5, who were father and brother of Petitioner 1. Hence, they approached the authorities by way of representation seeking protection, but no action was taken. The State Counsel submitted that he had received representation of the petitioners, and the same was to be decided in due course.
The Court stated that in protection matters, the State authorities were bound to provide protection first and thereafter proceed to find out whether any threat perception was made out or not. Considering the non-committal statement of the State counsel, the Court opined that it warranted discretion at the hands of the Station House Officer(‘SHO’) to decide whether to grant protection or not.
Further, the Court stated that in such matters, authorities should act quickly, and matter should not be allowed to get tangled in bureaucratic red-tapism. The Court stated that it was the duty of the Nodal Officer to immediately extend protection on receipt of application for protection and make appropriate inquiry thereafter.
The Court stated that “The threat to life is of urgent nature and has to be decided immediately and cannot be delayed.”
The Court held that in case the protection was denied, the same could only be denied by passing a detailed speaking order giving reasons for denial of protection at the initial stage. Denying protection amounts to violation of the right to life vested in a citizen. Further, the Court observed that in case protection was not awarded immediately on receipt of application made by citizen especially in case of marriage then the authorities should be made liable for their inaction for not giving timely protection and seeking one or other report if any untoward incident had taken place.
The Court opined that the purpose of protection is defeated if a person remains unprotected despite approaching the authorities for it. The Court specified that “it has always been fully aware about the prevalent socio-economic situation in the society and also the fact that violence in the name of honour killing or protecting honour takes place against such young boys and girls, who go against wishes of their parents or norms set by society and therefore, the authorities cannot be vested with the power to delay the protection to young couple without passing a speaking order giving reasons for denial of the protection. The authorities must take responsibility of their actions.”
Thus, the Court directed Respondent 2 to provide protection to petitioners and decide their representation by passing a speaking order accordingly. The Court disposed of the petition accordingly.
[Mandeeep Kaur v. State of Punjab, CRWP No. 11443 of 2025, decided on 24-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Rahul Garg, Advocate
For the Respondent: Puru Jarewal, D.A.G., Punjab