Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: Dinesh Mehta, J., issues notice and directs police to neither harass nor arrest the petitioner boy.

The facts of the case are such that the petitioner and complainant were scheduled to marry on 18-07-2021 which got postponed on account of the injury which the complainant had purportedly suffered where after, there arose some differences. An FIR was lodged alleging falsely about him as he tied knot with someone else recently in April 2022 with a possible malicious view to harass the petitioner and destroy his married life.

Counsel for petitioner submitted that the allegation leveled in the F.I.R. of sexual assault are absolutely mala fide which is evident from the fact that the engagement/their relationship stood broken in July, 2021 and the complainant had not done anything and waited for a period of more than 8 months and lodged the F.I.R. in question only when she found that the petitioner is about to marry another girl.

The Court thus directed to issue notice to the respondents.

The Court further held “Meanwhile, neither the petitioner shall be arrested nor shall he be harassed in the name of interrogation.”

[Vishwas Khatri v. State Of Rajasthan,  2022 SCC OnLine Raj 764, decided on 22-04-2022]


For Petitioner(s): Mr. Ravi Bhansali and Mr. Mohit Singhvi

For Respondent(s): Mr. Mahipal Vishnoi

Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief. 

Uttarakhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. dismissed a writ petition which involved the isuue pertaining to regulating the frontier borders of the country, adjoining to the ‘Line of Actual Control’, which adjoins and shares the boundary lines of our neighbouring country, China, which is approximately about 20 to 25 Kms. only away from the land, in dispute, which is proposed to be acquired for the purposes of meeting out the defence need of the ITBPF, i.e. ITBP.

The Court identified the issue as to whether despite of there being certain limited statutory protection; having being granted to a specified class of reserved community, i.e. the Scheduled Tribes, whether their personal rights, if it is, at all prevailing under law, would prevail over the right and interest of the nation, i.e. our Motherland, particularly, when it calls for defending the critical and strategic border of our Nation, in order to have preparedness, to meet any unprecedented insurgencies or army aggression, by the neighbouring county China.

The petitioners who are the residents of the village “Milam”, where the land in dispute is situated and which is proposed to be acquired for defence purposes. The petitioners contended that since they belonged to a Scheduled Tribes i.e. “Bhotia”, which in itself is a class of Tribes protected by the Constitution of India, as well as, under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be called as Act of 2013), their land ought not to have been acquired, even for the purposes of meeting out the requirement of the defence personnel, as because of their self acclaimed immunity, which they have claimed to have vested in them, in the light of the provisions contained under Section 40 to be read with Section 41 of the Act of 2013.

The Court observed that if the purpose of acquisition, which has been shown in the impugned Notification of 1st August, 2015, itself is taken into consideration, it is exclusively intended to meet the emergent need, for the purposes of establishment of the frontier chauki, i.e. Border Out Post (in short BOP), in Village Milam for the 14th Wing of ITBP. The Court was of the view that defence purposes of the country acquires the drivers seat, and would be predominantly overriding all the restrictive intentions of the Act of 2013, since being contrary to the constitutional intention, for protection of individual rights or even for a right of a class of Society, because no individual rights or even for that matter even public rights, can be at any moment be taken to be the superior rights, than to the right of defence of the Country, because of which, we all citizens are thriving peacefully, because our frontiers areas of the Country, are in the safe hands of our gallant army and para military personnels.

The Court further opined that the area of hearing of objections, under the different heads, which had been provided therein under Section 15 of the Act of 2013, will not be attracted or have its applicability, because the purpose herein as expressed in the notification of 08.08.2015, was for establishment of Border Out Post, adjoining to the Line of Actual Control, would not be an aspect, which at all could be left open for speculations and assessment by the executive or administrative authorities, because it could be best and with utmost perfection be only scrutinized by the defence forces authorities, to suit their need of deployment of armed personnel or establishment of their border out posts, which cannot be left open to be assessed by the executive. The Court relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Citizens for Green Doons v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1243 where necessity of the defence of the country was considered in detail. The court further discussed plethora of judgments  in relation to the matters of acquisition of land and found that in the present case since there is an imminent threat nor the case has been projected by the petitioners that they would be deprived of an adequate compensation to be made payable to them as per the provisions of the said Act, the aforesaid principles and the safeguards taken by the Supreme Court in the judgements will come to the rescue to the State to apply the theory of ‘eminent domain’ when there is a deprivation of the property, which has been saved by Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

The theory of “eminent domain” grants an exclusive and inherent dominant power with the Government, which is the supreme owner of any land falling within the territory of the Nation, to take over the land and property, though under the terms and conditions of the given set of law, in order to meet out the emergent country requirement, due to any army aggression, army preparedness to face any sudden enemy insurgency, National calamity or other areas of such emergent need of the country and for the country, where time always plays an important pivotal role and where it is exclusively only the need of the country at large, which is to be considered.

Court was of the view that it could only be assumed to a citizen when they are secured when the country’s defence structure and its strength and its preparedness to meet any sudden, military crisis is augmented by providing, its defence personnel or any other such agencies with sufficient infrastructural facilities, and particularly, at the strategic point, like the one, in question, where India is sharing an international border, which is hardly 20 to 25 km. away from the land in question, adjoining to the Line of Actual Control. Since the land is being acquired for the defence needs, this Court was of the view, that irrespective of whatsoever protection has been marginally granted by the Statute, it cannot be compromised under any set of circumstances to mitigate the defence need of the country, and particularly, when as per the ratios dealt with above, the petitioners right as envisaged by Article 300A are still protected.

The writ petition was dismissed.[Heera Singh Pangtey v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 SCC OnLine Utt 149, decided on 04-03-2022]

Mr T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr Ravi Shankar Kandpal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr V.D. Bisen, Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr Rakesh Thapliyal, Assistant Solicitor General, assisted by Mr Pankaj Chaturvedi and Mr Lalit Sharma, Standing Counsel, for the Union of India

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: While dealing with a matter regarding protection to live-in relationship, Anoop Chitkara, J., held that, every person in the territory of India has an inherent and indefeasible fundamental right to life flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the State is duty-bound to protect life.

Fearing for their lives and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, petitioners who are in live-in relationship approached this Court seeking protection through the State by invoking fundamental rights of life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Petitioner’s counsel submitted that petitioner 2 was a married woman and had voluntarily gone to the company of petitioner 1. Petitioners were facing grave danger from the private respondents and their lives be protected even though petitioner 2 was married to respondent 4.

High Court remarked that,

“…times are changing fast, even in those lands that were left behind and stuck with the old ethos and conservative social milieu.”

Bench added that,

“We are governed by the rule of law and follow the Constitutional dharma. In the ever-evolving society, evolving the law with it, the time is to shift perspective from didactics of the orthodox society, shackled with the strong strings of morality supported by religions to one that values an individual’s life above all.”

Further, the Court stated that if the allegations of apprehension of threat to their lives turn out to be true, it might lead to an irreversible loss.

Stating that this Court will not adjudicate on the validity of petitioner’s marriage or her decision of cohabiting with petitioner 1 but adhering to its fundamental duty of guarding their lives, Bench held that it shall be appropriate that the Superintendent of Police, SHO concerned or any officer to whom such powers have been delegated or have been authorized in this regard, provide appropriate protection to the petitioners.

With regard to the protection, High Court held that it is subject to the stringent condition that from the time such protection is given, the petitioners shall not go outside the boundaries of the place of their residence, except for medical necessities, to buy household necessities, and for bereavements in the families of the persons who are close to them, as it would save them from apprehended risk.

Lastly, the Bench clarified that the present order is not a blanket bail in any FIR.

In view of the above, petition was allowed. [Jai Narain v. State of Punjab, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H 584, decided on 18-2-2022]

Advocates before the Court:

Mr. Vishneet Singh Kathpal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rehatbir Singh Mann, DAG, Punjab.

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Sanjay Dhar, J., held that it is not open to a father or relatives of a girl to take law into their own hands and it is the duty of the Court to protect life and liberty of a major girl who, out of her own volition, wants to reside separately from her father.

The petitioners had approached the Court seeking a direction upon respondents to ensure safety of their life and honour. The case of the petitioners was that they had entered into wedlock out of their free will and volition against the wishes of the father of petitioner 1.

The petitioner 1 contended that her father was a ill repute who had entered into wedlock four times and had divorced her mother. It was further averred that her father wanted to give her in marriage to an illiterate truck driver and the same was resisted by her and she had even lodged a complaint with Women’s Commission in this regard.

Further, the petitioners alleged that private respondents i.e., respondents 6 to 9, invaded their house and raised a hue and cry over there and in case petitioners are not protected from the said respondents, they apprehend that they would be killed.

The respondents contested the petition for protection on the ground that the petitioner 1 had entered into a wedlock by suppressing the fact that there was already a restraint order passed by the Sub Judge, whereby she had been restrained from contracting marriage. According to the respondents, as per Shariat, consent of father his very important for marriage of daughter and without the consent of father, marriage is incomplete.

The Bench observed that the question whether the sub judge was justified in passing an order of restraint on marriage of petitioner 1 could be decided in appropriate proceedings, however, even if the petitioner 1 had violated the said order, it was not open to her father and his associates to harass the petitioners or to intimidate them. The proper course for them was to approach the concerned court seeking action for breach of its order. The Bench stated,

“No law or religion gives a license to a father to harass or intimidate his major daughter just because she does not accede to wishes of her father to marry a particular person.”

Hence, the writ petition was partly allowed and the State was directed to ensure that the petitioners were not harassed at the behest of respondents. [Anjum Afshan v.  State of J&K, 2021 SCC OnLine J&K 884, decided on 10-11-2020]

Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Appearance by:

For the petitioners: Mr. S. H. Thakur, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Sheikh Feroz, Dy. AG, vice

For the Respondents: Mr. B. A. Dar, Sr. AAG, for R1 to R6. and Mr. M. S. Reshi, Advocate-for R7 to R9.

Uttarakhand High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Ragvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ and Alok Kumar Verma, J., decided in the matter of a petition filed apprehending a threat to life and liberty.

The Petitioners had submitted that they had fallen in love with each other, both of them got married on 26-02-2021 as per the Muslim customs and rites and that their marriage was inter-faith. Both petitioners were found to be major. Respondents, the mother and father of petitioner 1 never accepted the marriage and threatened to kill them. The petitioner stated that they had filed a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police for the protection of their lives and liberties but no action has been taken.

The Court concluded that since both the petitioners are major, they are free to choose their life partners, the respondent cannot be permitted to interfere with the fundamental rights of the petitioners. The Court directed the Station House Officer, Police Station Rudrapur to immediately provide police protection to both the petitioners. The Court added that “The protection shall not only be for their lives, but shall also extend to protecting their property, if any.”

[Noori Begum v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (Crl) No. 955 of 2021, decided on 22-06-2021]

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Alka Sarin, J., while addressing the present matter made an observation that:

The alleged illegality of the marriage of the petitioners having been solemnized without the consent of the first wife is not to be gone into in the present proceedings which are only regarding providing of protection to the petitioners.

In the instant case, petitioners were both Muslim. Petitioners solemnized their marriage as per Muslim rites and rituals and a translated copy of the Nikahnama has been attached.

Marriage was solemnized against the wishes of respondents 4 to 7 who are the relatives of petitioner 2.

Petitioners Counsel submitted that the petitioners apprehended danger to their life at the hands of respondent 4 to 7.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that a Muslim boy or Muslim girl who has attained puberty is at liberty to marry anyone he or she likes and the guardian has no right to interfere.

Bench noted that the girl s aged more than 18 years in the instant case. In the decision of Yunus Khan v. State of Haryana,  [2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 518] it was observed that the marriage of a Muslim girl is governed by the personal law of Muslims. Article 195 from the book Principles of Mohammedan Law by Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla has also been reproduced in the said decision which article reads as under :

“195. Capacity for marriage – (1) Every Mahomedan of sound mind, who has attained puberty, may enter into a contract of marriage.

(2) Lunatics and minors who have not attained puberty may be validly contracted in marriage by their respective guardians.

(3) A marriage of a Mahomedan who is sound mind and has attained puberty, is void, if it is brought about without his consent.
Explanation – Puberty is presumed, in the absence of evidence, on completion of the age of fifteen years.”

Court held that both the petitioners in the instant were of marriageable age as envisaged by Muslim Law. The issue in hand was not the validity of the marriage but the fact that the petitioners were seeking protection of life and liberty as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Bench held that:

The Court cannot shut its eyes to the fact that the apprehension of the petitioners needs to be addressed.

Merely because the petitioners have got married against the wishes of their family members they cannot possibly be deprived of the fundamental rights as envisaged in the Constitution of India.

In view of the above discussion, Court disposed of the petition with a direction to Superintendent of Police to take the necessary action as per law.[Jakar v. State of Haryana,  2020 SCC OnLine P&H 2266, decided on 16-12-2020]

Advocates who appeared before the Court:

Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Naveen Singh Panwar, DAG, Haryana.

Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent 4

Sunita Gupta, Advocate for Warisa (first wife of petitioner 1)

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J., addressed a petition where protection was sought of the Court by a couple against threats and harassment by family members.

The Petitioners (a wife and her husband) sought directions upon respondents not to interfere in their married life and also sought the protection of their life and liberty.

Harassment & Threat

Petitioners stated that they are adults and living together as husband and wife out of their own free will. For the said reasons, the respondent and his other family members were angry with them and that there was serious danger to the petitioners’ lives as they were being threatened and harassed.


To substantiate their claim the petitioner-wife submitted her high school certificate as proof that she was a major now and along with that, the petitioner-couple have brought on record the complete online application for registration of their marriage.

Family Honour

Petitioners have an apprehension that the respondents would eliminate them for the honour of the respondent’s family.


Standing Counsel for the State submitted that an FIR is already pending against the petitioner-husband when he and the petitioner-wife had eloped and that the petitioner-husband has been charged with having committed an offence under POCSO Act (the petitioner-wife being a minor at that time) and therefore, he ought not be granted protection of the Court.

Petitioners’ counsel submitted that the FIR was lodged when the petitioners had first eloped but now they have entered into wedlock and the petitioner-wife is now major and therefore, the FIR not being recent but of 2018, cannot come in way of their getting married and getting protection by this Court.


The Bench stated that there is no need to issue any notice to the private respondents and with the consent of the petitioners’ counsel, the petition is disposed of in terms of the Rules of the Court. The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has settled the law that where a boy and a girl are major and they are living with their free will, then, nobody including their parents, has any authority to interfere with their living together.

Cases for reference:

Gian Devi v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi, (1976) 3 SCC 234; Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475; and Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396.

Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court stated that in case of any disturbance being caused in the peaceful living of the petitioner, they shall approach the police authority concerned.

Petition was partly allowed. [Priya Verma v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 1023, decided on 07-09-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J., decided upon the prayer of protection being sought by a boy and girl living together on their own free will as husband and wife with threats and harassment.

The present matter is in regard to seek a direction upon the respondents to not interfere in the petitioner’s married life and the protection of their lives has also been sought.

Serious Danger to Life

Petitioners claimed that they are adults and living together on their own free will, though they are being threatened and harassed by the private respondent and his other family members.

Family Honour

Further, the petitioners added that they are living as husband and wife and have apprehension that private respondent can eliminate them for the honour of his family.

They seek protection as their lives may be endangered.


Bench stated that the present petition is to be disposed of in terms of the Rules of the Court.

Court referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Gian Devi v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi, (1976) 3 SCC 234; Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475; and Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396 and observed that the law has been settled by the Supreme Court that,

“…where a boy and a girl are major and they are living with their free will, then, nobody including their parents, has authority to interfere with their living together.”

Therefore, petitioners are at liberty to live together and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living.

Petitioners shall approach the police authority concerned in case of any disturbance of their peaceful living.

In view of the above, the petition was disposed of. [Priyanka v. State of U.P., Writ-C No. 13345 of 2020, decided on 03-09-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: The Division Bench of Sonia Gokani and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.,  while addressing a matter for protection of a couple, stated that

By way of social policing, attempt can also be made by the officer concerned who is investigating the earlier complaint of the petitioner filed against family members of the corpus and to make an attempt to bring an amicable solution between the families.

In the present matter, Corpus was produced through Video Conferencing at District Court, Palanpur.

Additional District Judge, Robin Mogera helped the Court in specifying the girl-corpus and further the Bench noticed that the corpus expressed her desire before the ADJ to join her husband. She also confirmed that she was carrying foetus in her womb of the petitioner.

Court had protected both the petitioner and the corpus who had married against the wish and will of the girl’s parents.

Even during the  video conference it is quite visible that girl’s mother tried to emotionally blackmail by the stating that she may have to end her life if corpus continues to express her desire to join her husband.

Court requested the ADJ to make an attempt to bring an amicable solution and if he deems fit, he may refer the matter to the Mediation Center.

Protection to the couple shall continue for 4 months, Thereafter the matter shall be posted before the Superintendent of Police, Palanpur, who shall decide as to whether to continue such protection or not.

Caste system in the country is making it more and more difficult for the young people to decide their own life partner and the rigidity in the minds of adults in the family becomes the serious cause of division of human relationship.

Further the Court added that it gets difficult for the administration to handle social and emotional upheaval which eventually turn into legal battleground. Petition was disposed of in the above-view. [Niteshkumar Mulchandbhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 897 , decided on 17-06-2020]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Sandeep Mehta and Abhay Chaturvedi, JJ., allowed a Habeas Corpus Petition and allowed the petitioner to stay with his wife, and directing the authorities to provide her with adequate protection.

In the instant case, the corpus, Urmila, a Government teacher posted at Jalore District, was staying at Nari Niketan, Jodhpur expressed her willingness to stay with the petitioner, her husband, with whom she was legally married. However, she conveyed an apprehension that she and her family might be under scrutiny and subject to harassment from the members of the community. The Counsel representing the petitioner, Pradeep Choudhary, thus prayed to the Court for providing adequate measures against such mishaps.

The High Court, in an in-camera proceeding, took into consideration the prayer of the petitioner and directed the police authorities to accompany the petitioner, his wife, and the family till they reach the matrimonial home. The petitioner was also provided an assurance of necessary steps to be taken in case of any untoward incident taking place by the members of the society.[Dinesh Suthar v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 1229, decided on 01-07-2019]

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: The Bench of Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. allowed a petition seeking protection, filed by a couple who performed inter-caste marriage.

The petitioners out of their free will and consent executed a marriage agreement duly attested by notary. They also married as per Hindu rites and customs at Arya Samaj Janipur, Jammu. As per the affidavit filed by them, it was evident that they were major at the time they solemnized the marriage. Father of the girl (Respondent 5) was vehemently opposed to their marriage; and he harassed and threatened to kill them. This led the petitioners to restrict their movement and being aggrieved, they filed the instant petition.

The Court relied on Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC 368 to hold that right to marry a person of one’s choice is an integral aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was further placed on Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475, wherein the Apex Court directed that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law”.

In view of the above, this petition was allowed and official respondent’s 1 to 4 were directed to ensure adequate protection of lives and liberty of the petitioners.[Simran Choudhary v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2019 SCC OnLine J&K 404, Order dated 01-05-2019]

Kerala High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of K.Harilal and Annie John. JJ. allowed a revision petition filed by mother of a 15-year old girl, who was subjected to sexual assault by a family friend named Imam Mr Shafeek Al-Kasmi.

The instant petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 challenging the order of respondent whereby it was declared that petitioner’s minor daughter required care and protection and that the child’s counselling shall be carried out by admitting her in an institution. 

Mr Ram Mohan G., counsel on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the continued detention of a child under the orders of respondent was prejudicial to her interests and well being as she required the moral support, guidance and presence of her mother.

Mr Suman Chakravarthy, Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent, submitted that even though the sexual assault took place in February 2019, petitioner and her relatives did not report the matter to police due to which the child could not be medically examined. Further, as per the report of District Child Protection Officer, it was not congenial to restore the child to the petitioner, since the accused was a well-known religious leader and a frequent visitor of their family, who had not been arrested so far. Therefore, the child was not safe with the petitioner.

The learned Judges interacted with the child in Chambers in the absence of her mother and relatives. The child expressed her willingness to go along with her mother or maternal grandmother but was not ready to live in the institution. 

The Court opined that inquiry, as contemplated under Section 36 of the Act, was not conducted by the respondent in the presence of petitioner or other family members of the victim. Respondent did not try to ascertain the wishes of the child. Thus, the mandate of Section 3 of the Act was violated. It was held that when the child needs care and protection, then before putting the child in Children’s Home, there should be the application of mind by the committee and it must also take into account the child’s wishes along with the investigation report of Child Welfare Committee.

In view of the above, the impugned order was set aside and Superintendent of Child Shelter Home was directed to release the child forthwith to the petitioner-mother.[Sheeja Navas v. Child Welfare Committee, 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 1156, Order dated 08-03-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: This interlocutory application was filed before the Bench of Atul Sreedharan, J.

Facts of the case were that an order was passed where the petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the residential accommodation provided to the petitioner subject to petitioner’s paying rent of the premises as per rules. With respect to the above order, an interlocutory application was filed in this case in order to recall the said order.

It was submitted before Court that petitioner was residing in the official accommodation but had not complied with that part of the order by virtue of which petitioner was required to pay the rent as per rules. It was also alleged that the petitioner started depositing money only after filing of this application for recall of the order. Further submission was made that petitioner even after the passing of the order was residing in the official accommodation but was not paying the rent as per rules.

High Court was of the view that petitioner had violated the orders of this Court which does not deserve sympathy and thus the protection given to petitioner was recalled and the respondents were given the liberty to evict petitioner from the premises in accordance with law. [V.S. Sikirvar v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine MP 487, Order dated 19-03-2019]

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]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of CJ Ranjan Gogoi and U.U Lalit and K.M. Joseph, JJ. gave directions to the Hyderabad Police in order to provide adequate security to the complainant in the alleged bribery case against CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana.

According to the media reports, Satish Sana i.e. complainant approached the Supreme Court for seeking protection and stay on the notice issued by the agency summoning him for interrogation.

The Bench refused to stay CBI summons and rejected the complainant’s plea for recording his statement before the retired Supreme Court judge Justice A.K. Patnaik.

[Source: PTI]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: A 2-Judge Bench comprising of Dilip B Bhosale, CJ. and Yashwant Varma, J., dealt with a public interest litigation for giving directions for the purpose of protecting shelter homes as a lot of cases were coming where the shelter homes management were in question.

The matter came for review before the Court for further directions pursuant to the earlier order passed in these proceedings. Additional Advocate General submitted that proposals formulated would help the Court in passing further directions and for formulation of policy for monitoring shelter homes in the State. Court noted that it was directed by the State to the Director, Academy of Management Studies, Lucknow to undertake a social audit of all shelter homes, however, no audit was actually conducted. In another order, a seven-member committee was created to formulate directives for shelter homes in the State. Interim directions were given to District Judges to form monitoring committee for inspection of shelter homes.

The Additional Chief Secretary had brought before the Court that currently there were no codified norms to protect the shelter homes except the ones established or run under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Court did not agree with the averments of Additional Chief Secretary and mentioned provisions of Swadhar Greh Scheme framed by the Union Government related to shelter homes.

Last direction to be given was related to installation of CCTV cameras which was contested by the Additional Chief Secretary to have been already installed. With above directions, the Court disposed of this petition. [Abuse of Girls in a Women Shelter Home, Deoria, In re, (PIL) No. 4112 of 2018, order dated 05-09-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Meghalaya High Court: Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, CJ. sitting in a criminal petition seeking to quash a case against the petitioners (army men), declined to provide the protection under Section 197(2) CrPC.

It was alleged against the petitioners (accused persons) that one of them, Sep Kamal Gurung, took up a fight with traffic police constables while they were doing their duty. The said petitioner was drunk at that time. He was taken to the police station to be sent for medical examination. However, in the meanwhile, the other petitioners (both Major in the army), reached the police station along with a troop of Gorkha Regiment; ordered the troop to load their sophisticated weapons; and took Kamal Gurung with them by causing criminal intimidation of death or grievous hurt. Consequently, a case was filed against them under Sections 353, 186, 323, 506(b), 225, 109  read with Section 34 IPC. Judicial Magistrate of First Class took cognizance of the offences. In the present petition, it was submitted that the trial court was in error as cognizance was taken without previous sanction as required as required in terms of Section 197(2) CrPC.

The High Court noted that the said section requires the previous sanction for taking cognizance of any alleged offence by army personnel for any act done in discharge of official duty. The Court observed that for the said protection, it was of paramount importance that the act was done in discharge of official duty. On the facts of the case, the Court held that act of the petitioners, precisely noted hereinabove, by any stretch of the imagination, could not be said to be an act done in discharge of official duty. Therefore, the protection under Section 197(2) was not available to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. [Vikrant Sharma v. State of Meghalaya,2018 SCC OnLine Megh 89, decided on 13-07-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sangeeta Chandra, J. allowed a writ petition directing the respondent Authorities to ensure peaceful married life to the young married couple who were petitioners before the Court.

The petition was filed praying for the protection of the petitioners from the respondents. It was prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued against the respondents not to interfere in petitioners’ matrimonial life. On the basis of the NEET admit card, the Court noted the fact that Petitioner 2 (girl) was above 18 years of age and had married Petitioner 1 (boy). The Court referred to Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475: (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 478, wherein it was observed, This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major, he/she can marry whoever they like. If the parents of the boy/girl do not approve of inter-caste or inter-religious marriage, they can at the most cut social ties with their son/daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate violent acts against them. As such, the petition was disposed of directing the respondent Authorities to ensure undisturbed peaceful married life to the petitioners. [Manish Chaturvedi v. State of U.P.,2018 SCC OnLine All 840, dated 22-6-2018]

Cabinet DecisionsLegislation Updates

The Union Cabinet has approved the Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2018 for introduction in Parliament. The Bill broadly has the following features:
  1. Addresses the issue of trafficking from the point of view of prevention, rescue and rehabilitation.
  2. Aggravated forms of trafficking, which includes traffickingtrafficking for the purpose of forced labour, begging, trafficking by administering chemical substance or hormones on a personfor the purpose of early sexual maturity, trafficking of a woman or child for the purpose of marriage or under the pretext of marriage or after marriage etc.
  3. Punishment for promoting or facilitating trafficking of person which includesproducing, printing, issuing or distributing unissued, tampered or fake certificates, registration or stickers as proof of compliance with Government requirements; orcommits fraud for procuring or facilitating the acquisition of clearances and necessary documents from Government agencies.
  4. The confidentiality of victims/witnesses and complainants by not disclosing their identity. Further the confidentiality of the victims is maintained by recording their statement through video conferencing (this also helps in trans-border and inter-State crimes).
  5. Time bound trial and repatriation of the victims – within a period of one year from taking into cognizance.
  6. Immediate protection of rescued victims and their rehabilitation. The Victims are entitled to interim relief immediately within 30 days to address their physical, mental trauma etc. and further appropriate relief within 60 days from the date of filing of charge sheet.
  7. Rehabilitation of the victim which is not contingent upon criminal proceedings being initiated against the accused or the outcome thereof.
  8. Rehabilitation Fund created for the first time. To be used for the physical, psychological and social well-being of the victim including education, skill development, health care/psychological support, legal aid, safe accommodation,etc.
  9. Designated courts in each district for the speedy trial of the cases.
  10. The Bill creates dedicated institutional mechanisms at District, State and CentralLevel. These will be responsible for prevention, protection, investigation and rehabilitation work related to trafficking.  National Investigation Agency (NIA) will perform the tasks of Anti-Trafficking Bureau at the national level present under the MHA.
  11. Punishment ranges from rigorous minimum 10 years to life and fine not less than Rs. 1 lakh.
  12. In order to break the organized nexus, both at the national and international level, the Bill provides for the attachment and forfeiture of property and also theproceeds for crime.
  13. The Bill comprehensively addresses the transnational nature of the crime. The National Anti-Trafficking Bureau will perform the functions of international coordination with authorities in foreign countries and international organizations; international assistance in investigation; facilitate inter-State and trans-border transfer of evidence and materials, witnesses and others for expeditingprosecution; facilitate inter-state and international video conferencing in judicial proceedings etc.


Trafficking in human beings is the third largest organised crime violating basic human rights. There is no specific law so far to deal with this crime. Accordingly, the Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2018 has been prepared. The Bill addresses one of the most pervasive yet invisible crimes affecting the most vulnerable persons especially women and children.

The new law will make India a leader among South Asian countries to combat trafficking. Trafficking is a global concern also affecting a number of South Asian nations. Amongst them, India is now a pioneer in formulating a comprehensive legislation. UNODC and SAARC nations are looking forward to India to take lead by enacting this law.

The Bill has been prepared in consultation with line Ministries, Departments, State Governments, NGOs and domain experts. A large number of suggestions received by the Ministry of WCD in hundreds of petitions have been incorporated in the Bill.  The Draft Bill discussed in regional consultations held in Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai and Bombay with various stakeholders including over 60 NGOs. The Bill was examined and discussed by Group of Ministers also.