TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | Time CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Advertisement

State duty-bound to protect life, liberty of every citizen, rules Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik Chandigarh, June 16 The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the state government authorities are duty-bound to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. As such, a separate direction is not required to...
Advertisement

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Advertisement

Chandigarh, June 16

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the state government authorities are duty-bound to protect the life and liberty of every citizen. As such, a separate direction is not required to be issued to the police authorities for safeguarding the runaway couples.

Frivolous petitions

Advertisement

It is beyond imagination why would the parents ever threaten to kill their own children, but it has become a trend to file such frivolous petitions. HC Bench

The Bench also observed that accusing kin of threatening the runaway couples in frivolous petitions had become a trend. The judgment by Justice Alok Jain marks a clear-cut departure from the customary practice of looking into the merits of the matter before issuing directions in certain cases to the police authorities to decide their representations for protection.

The judgment is also significant as different HC Benches have been taking diverse stands on the issue of granting protection in such cases. It comes at a time when the HC is flooded with protection petitions.

Justice Jain was hearing a petition filed by a newly married couple seeking the issuance of a writ directing the official respondents to protect their life and liberty. Describing it as a “strange case”, the Bench said the petitioners got married on June 2 and both of them immediately approached the police authorities to seek protection “instead of thinking about starting their matrimonial life”.

Justice Jain asserted their representation dated June 2, annexed along with the petition, was “as vague as it could be” and did not mention the details of the threat perception to the petitioners. It also did not mention at whose behest the petitioners were feeling threatened. Moreover, there was no date, time or mode of threat communication to the petitioners. The representation only carried an averment that the private respondents had threatened that the couple would be killed.

“It is beyond imagination why would the parents ever threaten to kill their own children, but it has become a trend to file such frivolous petitions. Accordingly, no directions are required to be passed in this petition as it is the duty of the authorities to protect the life and liberty of its citizens and the same shall be done by the respondents in the present case also. Finding no merits, dismissed,” Justice Jain concluded.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement