Stay at home, HC tells live-in couple who sought security

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, February 3

In a first of its kind judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has virtually ordered a stay-in curfew for a live-in couple after they expressed safety concerns.

Linked to threat perception

The petitioners may do away with police protection even before the week’s expiry if they no longer require it. After that, the officials concerned will extend the protection on a day-to-day analysis of the ground realities or upon their oral or written request. Justice Anoop Chitkara

Advertisement

The Bench ordered protection to the couple on the condition that they would not move out except for medical purposes, buying household necessities or bereavements.

“This restriction saves the petitioners from apprehended risk and ensures that the protection is not flaunted,” Justice Anoop Chitkara of the High Court asserted, while taking up the petition filed against the State of Haryana and other respondents by the couple through counsel Sanchit Punia.

Justice Chitkara observed the couple, fearing for their lives and liberty at the hands of the respondent-kin, had moved the court seeking protection through the State by invoking their fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Justice Chitkara added that the petitioners— in a live-in relationship — were major, though one of them was not of marriageable age. The allegations and apprehensions of threat to their lives might result in an irreversible loss, if these turned out to be true. As such, it would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances peculiar to the case that the Superintendent of Police, the Station House Officer, or any officer to whom such powers have been delegated may provide appropriate protection to the petitioners for a week.

Justice Chitkara further added that the petitioners might do away with the protection even before the week’s expiry, if they no longer required it. After that, the officials concerned would extend the protection on a day-to-day analysis of the ground realities or upon their oral or written request.

Justice Chitkara clarified that the order would not operate as a blanket bail in any FIR and would not come in the way if their interrogation was required in any cognisable case.