Delay in protection to couples violates right to life: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Holding that delay in granting protection to couples amounts to a violation of the fundamental right to life, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that protection must be extended immediately on receipt of a request, particularly in marriage cases. Any refusal must be supported by a detailed, speaking order.

Justice Parmod Goyal asserted the State authorities in a protection matters were bound to first provide safeguard and then proceed to find out “whether any threat perception is made out or not”.

Warning of personal liability for delay, the court asserted: “In case protection is not awarded immediately on receipt of application made by a citizen especially in case of marriage, the authorities shall be made liable for their inaction for not giving protection timely and seeking one or other report if any untoward incident takes place.”

The observations came on a petition filed by a couple who had married of their own free will and sought protection from the bride’s father and brother. Despite submitting a representation on October 19, action was not taken. The State counsel told the court that the representation had been received only a day earlier and would be decided “in due course”.

The court described the State counsel’s stand as “totally non-committal” before asserting that such a response effectively gave the SHO the discretion to decide whether to grant protection — which the law did not permit.

Justice Goyal made it clear that protection requests could not be entangled in bureaucratic red-tapism. “It is the duty of the nodal officer to immediately extend protection on receipt of the application and make appropriate inquiry thereafter.”

The court added that the threat to life was to be decided immediately and could not be delayed. Denial of such protection amounted to violation of right to life vested in a citizen. The bench added that the “purpose of protection is defeated if a person remains unprotected despite approaching the authorities”.

Referring to recurring cases where young couples faced violence for marrying against family wishes, Justice Goyal observed that the court repeatedly recognised the threat of honour-based violence. “The court 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,” the bench added.