Ensure 3-day timeframe for runaway couples seeking protection: HC to Home Secy
Chandigarh, April 1
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has advised Punjab Home Secretary to ensure strict compliance with the three-day timeframe for deciding representations of runaway couples seeking protection.
The direction came after the Bench took a serious note of a five-day delay in dealing with a representation filed by a runaway couple for police protection.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed that the delay in processing the representation — received by post on March 20 but forwarded for action only on March 25 — suggested negligence within the police ranks.
The observation came as the court refused to accept attempts by Kapurthala Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) to make a clerk scapegoat by issuing him a show-cause notice for failing to timely forward the representation for necessary action.
The Bench noted that the SSP had not effectively communicated the urgency of the matter to his staff, before condemning the oversight and warning that human life could be taken casually.
“The SSP himself is responsible for the delay and should not make a clerk the scapegoat as the SSP, being district’s law enforcement head, was fully aware of the standard operating procedures (SOPs) issued. This is why the SOPs clearly stated that once a representation is received in his office, it must be addressed and decided within three days. However, the representation was not placed before him for five days, indicating that the SSP did not effectively communicate the urgency of the matter to his staff, despite the routine nature of the process. This oversight deserves to be condemned,” Justice Moudgil asserted.
Referring to his affidavit, Justice Moudgil observed that the inquiry into the couple’s representation was concluded on March 26. But the inquiry report submitted to the court lacked critical details, including the date of completion and official endorsements, raising concerns that the matter was hastily wrapped up only after court intervention.
“However, at this stage, the court refrains from taking further action, acknowledging that the SOPs were introduced recently. Adopting these, and mechanism suggested under these, to address representations might take time. Nonetheless, the forces involved were expected to act swiftly and effectively and not suppress such matters. With this in mind, the court offers a word of advice and will dispose of this petition, trusting that good sense will prevail among the officers involved,” Justice Moudgil asserted.
The Bench asked the Secretary to issue a circular/instructions to the police headquarters through the SSP/SP/Commissionerate “to take note of the fact that such delay should not occur and timeframe legislated in the SOPs should be adhered to strictly as the matter is not such simply deciding and hearing the representation, but to ensure that no human life is taken casually and is protected.”
