Punjab and Haryana High Court issues guidelines to address runaway couples' pleas

Flooded daily with approximately 90 petitions filed by the runaway couples for protection, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued 12 guidelines to Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh, including the creation of a two-tier redressal and appellate mechanism within the police establishment. Once in place, the mechanism could save up to four hours of precious court time daily.

Advertisement

The directions came as Justice Sandeep Moudgil made it clear that providing care and shelter to the couple was “primary and essential duty” of the law enforcing agency and an application or representation received by the police was required to be dealt with utmost urgency and caution. The courts were the last resort.

Justice Moudgil asserted the constitutional courts were duty-bound to step-in for ensuring protection, whenever an individual’s life and liberty was under threat. But the courts could not be allowed to become the first port of call for every apprehension of threat. The constitutional guarantee of life and personal liberty formed the bedrock of the country’s democratic structure and enshrined the State’s obligation to provide congenial atmosphere that was free from fear.

“The doctrine of subsidiarity demands that the State authorities being the first responders must act with swiftness, efficiency and with impartiality to address the grievance. The failure to do so on their part not only burdens the judiciary with preventable litigation but also dilutes the effectiveness of constitutional remedies,” the court asserted.

Justice Moudgil directed the appointment of a nodal officer at each district headquarters and a police officer, not below Assistant Sub-Inspector’s rank, at every police station in the two states and UT. The guidelines included the immediate marking of representations to the designated police officer through the nodal officer followed by a thorough inquiry, an opportunity of hearing to both parties, and a decision within a stipulated timeframe.

An appellate authority was also proposed to address grievances arising from the police inquiry, ensuring that the courts were approached only after exhausting administrative remedies. The Bench was of the view that most issues could be effectively settled at an early stage, without further litigation. A person would only seek redress before the court in cases where the allegations were truly serious.

Justice Moudgil observed that veracity of allegations in petitions as of now could not be examined by courts as factual inquiries fell within the purview of police authorities. Findings on most of these petitions following court directions often indicated the absence of actual threat perception. “This exercise turns out to be a futile one, tantamounting not only to wastage of precious time of the court but also consuming substantial manpower and administrative expenses,” the court asserted.

Justice Moudgil added four hours of court time daily, if saved following adherence to its guidelines, could be better utilised for disposing of older pending cases, including those involving convicts awaiting appeals or individuals seeking bail in long-pending trials. The court asserted: “The State is also bound, having a solemn duty to uphold constitutional values, ensuring that the right under Article 21 is not rendered illusory by executive or administrative inefficiency or procedural delays.”

Before concluding the matter, the Bench directed the forwarding of the order to key officials, including the Chief Secretaries, DGPs, Home Secretaries, Advocates-General of Punjab, Haryana and UT senior standing counsel.

They were directed to formulate a mechanism based on the guidelines before circulating it within 30 days. A compliance report was also directed to be submitted within a week thereafter. Justice Moudgil also instructed the forwarding of the order to all Sessions Divisions.