Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: Dinesh Mehta J. rejected the petition and disposed off the stay application.

The instant petitions were filed by couples who have fled home and have decided to marry and are now before the Court seeking police protection.

The Court relied on judgment Lata Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2522, wherein it was observed that the Courts are not meant to provide protection to such youths, who have simply fled to marry according to their own wishes.

The Court observed that there is no material or reason for this Court to conclude that the petitioners’ life and liberty are at peril. There is not even an iota of evidence to evince that private respondents (relatives of the petitioner 1) are likely to cause physical or mental assault to the petitioners. If the petitioners have decided to marry, they must muster the audacity and possess tenacity to face and to persuade the society and their family to accept the step they have taken.

The Court observed that in a deserving case, the Court can provide security to the couple, but cannot lend them the support they have sought. They have to learn to support each other and face the society. If any person misbehaves or manhandles them, the Courts and police authorities are there to come to their rescue, but they cannot claim security as a matter of course or right.

The Court held “any serious threat perception to the petitioners is not found and, therefore, there is no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them”

[Shobha v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 545/2022, decided on 11-01-2022]


Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.


Appearances:

For petitioner: Mr Ankit Chaudhary

Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab & Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Raj Shekhar Attri, J., allowed a writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking protection from private respondents 4 to 6, since the petitioners apprehend danger to their life, limb and liberty from the hands of private respondents.

The main issue that arose before the Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to get protection on the basis of apprehension of danger.

The Court observed that the Constitutional philosophy completely eradicates discrimination on the grounds of castes, creed, religion, domicile etc. It has propounded the equality and freedom but after a lapse of 68 years since after coming into force of the Constitution of India, the citizens, especially in the rural areas, are under the influence of orthodox phenomenon and believe in the traditional societies. It gravely affects the doctrine of social justice and equality. The petitioners in the present case had provided sufficient evidences of their age and it was proved that they were both majors who got married and were living together. Since both the petitioners are citizens of India, they have a right to live with dignity. The Court referred to its own decision in the case of Pardeep Kumar Singh v. State of Haryana2007 SCC OnLine P&H 1230, wherein several guidelines with regard to safety concerns of run-away couples were laid down by the Court.

The Court held that the petitioners had every right to seek protection of their lives as the same has been guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is incumbent upon the state to ensure the safety of such couples.[Sushmita v. State of Punjab, CRM M No. 49692 of 2018 (O&M), order dated 13-11-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court:  A Division Judge Bench comprising of Surya Kant, CJ and Ajay Mohan Goel, J., disposed of an appeal wherein the right to water and electricity supply was directed as them being the basic necessities of life.

The petitioner constructed a residential house against which eviction proceedings were initiated against the petitioner as the land in possession was owned by the State Government. The petitioner applied for the electricity and water connections, but both these amenities were denied on the premise that ‘No Objection Certificate’ was not issued by the Municipal Council.

The respondents submitted that the same cannot be granted as the petitioner has not risen the construction after getting building plan sanctioned plus the petitioner unauthorizedly occupied the Government land and raised illegal construction, without seeking prior approval of the authorities.

The Court agreed to the fact that ordinarily, it would be reluctant in granting relief to a person alleged to be an encroacher over the Government property, but at the same time, it was not expedient to express any view on merits, as any observation in relation to this issue was likely to have impacted on the merits of the case.

The prime consideration was whether the basic amenities of water and electricity shall be granted to the petitioner or not. It was stated that as they were an integral part of Right to Life within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution of India calls for immediate action. Thus till the title dispute remains pending, for that considerable period the petitioner shall be granted the same on subject to their payment of requisite charges and shall remain purely an interim and ad hoc measure till the title dispute was decided. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of. [Madan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2018 SCC OnLine HP 1495,  decided on22-10-2018]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: After a 73-year-old man from Tamil Nadu sought ban on the Blue Whale challenge game linked to deaths of several children worldwide, the 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and AM Khanwilkar and Dr. DY Chandrachud, JJ issued notice to the Centre and sought its response in three weeks. The Court also sought assistance of Attorney General K K Venugopal in the matter.

The Court had agreed to hear the plea on 11.09.2017. The petitioner had also sought creating of awareness among the public about the online game.

As per the media reports, at least 200 people had committed suicide after playing the online Blue Whale game. Most of them are young children in the age group of 13 to 15 years. The petitioner said the Madurai City Police had confirmed that a college student, who had committed suicide after playing the game, had forwarded it to over 150 friends.

Earlier, on 22.08.2017, the Delhi High Court had sought response of Facebook, Google and Yahoo on a plea to direct them to take down the links of the Blue Whale challenge.