Allowed

Pardeep Kumar and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Aug 2023CRWP/387/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the court directed the State to provide a seven-day protective order to two petitioners in a live-in relationship fearing for their lives. The protection is restricted to their residence within the district, subject to specific conditions and an automatic eclipse after fifteen days, without adjudicating the merits of their marriage.

What did the court decide?

Protection order for one week (extendable on analysis) restricting petitioners to residence boundaries, subject to specific conditions and automatic eclipse after fifteen days.

Pardeep Kumar and Another Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

CRWP No. 387 of 2023

¶2

2023:PHHC:102974

¶3

214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRWP No. 387 of 2023 Date of Decision: 09.08.2023

¶5

Pardeep Kumar and another

¶6

...Pe��oners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others …Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶10

Present: None for the pe��oners.

¶11

Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.

¶12

¶13

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶14

Fearing for their lives and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the pe��oners, who claim to be in a live-in-rela�onship, despite the female being previously married and such marriage is s�ll in subsistence, have come up before this Court seeking protec�on through the State, by invoking their fundamental rights of life guaranteed under Ar�cle 21 of the Cons�tu�on of India, seeking direc�on to the State to protect them.

¶15

Counsel for the pe��oners submits that pe��oner No. 1 is unmarried and pe��oner No. 2 is earlier married with respondent No.4-Sukhdeep Singh and out of this wedlock, no child is born.

¶16

The �mes are changing fast, even in those lands that were le� behind and stuck with the old ethos and conserva�ve social milieu. We are governed by the rule of law and follow the Cons�tu�onal dharma. In the ever-evolving society, evolving the law with it, the �me is to shi� perspec�ve from didac�cs of the orthodox society, shackled within the strong strings of morality supported by religions to one that values an individual’s life above all. Every person in the territory of India has an inherent and indefeasible fundamental right to life flowing from Ar�cle 21 of India’s cons�tu�on and the State is duty bound to protect life.

¶17

In Mohd Arif @ Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, 2 022:INSC:1154 [Para 17] (2014) 9 SCC 737, the Cons�tu�onal bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds, [17]. As the determina�on of this case has to do with the fundamental

¶18

JYOTI 2023.08.10 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶19

¶20

CRWP No. 387 of 2023

¶21

2023:PHHC:102974

¶22

right to life, which, among all fundamental rights, is the most precious to all human beings, we need to delve into Ar�cle 21 which reads as follows:

¶23

"21. Protec�on of life and personal liberty.-No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."

¶24

[18]. This Ar�cle has its origin in nothing less than the Magna Carta, (the 39th Ar�cle) of 1215 vintage which King John of England was forced to sign by his Barons. It is a li�le known fact that this original charter of liberty was faulted at the very start and did not get off the ground because of a Papal Bull issued by Pope Innocent the third declaring this charter to be void. Strangely, like Magna Carta, Art. 21 did not get off the ground for 28 years a�er which, unshackled, it has become the single most important fundamental right under the Cons�tu�on of India, being described as one of a holy trinity consis�ng of a 'golden triangle' (see Minerva Mills v. Union of India, 1981 1 SCR 206 at 263), and being one of two ar�cles which cannot be eclipsed during an emergency (Ar�cle 359 as amended by the Cons�tu�on 44th Amendment).

¶25

If the allega�ons of apprehension of threat to their lives turn out to be true, it might lead to an irreversible loss. This Court is not adjudica�ng on the validity of pe��oners’ marriage but adhering to its fundamental duty of guarding their lives. Thus, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, it shall be appropriate that the concerned Superintendent of Police, SHO, or any officer to whom such powers have been delegated or have been authorized in this regard, provide appropriate protec�on to the pe��oners for one week from today. However, if the pe��oners no longer require the protec�on, then at their request it may be discon�nued even before the expiry of one week. A�er that, the concerned officers shall extend the protec�on on day-to-day analysis of the ground reali�es or upon the oral or wri�en request of the pe��oners.

¶26

This protec�on is subject to the stringent condi�on that from the �me such protec�on is given, the pe��oners shall not go outside the boundaries of the place of their residence, except for medical necessi�es, to buy household necessi�es, and for bereavements in the families of the persons who are close to them. However, pe��oner(s) shall be at liberty to shi� the residence(s) and if the new place falls within the district, then the protec�on shall be extended to such place. This restric�on saves the pe��oners from apprehended risk and ensures that the protec�on is not flaunted.

¶27

It is clarified that there is no adjudica�on on merits and that this order is not a

¶28

blanket bail in any FIR. It is further clarified that this order shall not come in the way if the interroga�on of the pe��oners is required in any cognizable case. It shall also be open for the pe��oner(s) to approach this Court again in case of any fresh threat percep�on.

¶29

JYOTI 2023.08.10 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶30

¶31

CRWP No. 387 of 2023

¶32

2023:PHHC:102974

¶33

. This order shall eclipse a�er fi�een days from today

¶34

There would be no need for a cer�fied copy of this order, and any Advocate for the Pe��oners and State can download this order and other relevant par�culars from the official web page of this court and a�est it to be a true copy. The concerned officer can also verify its authen�city and may download and use the downloaded copy for immediate use.

¶35

Pe��on is allowed to the extent men�oned above . All pending applica�ons, if any, stand disposed.

¶36

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 09.08.2023 Jyo�-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶37

JYOTI 2023.08.10 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶38

Pardeep Kumar and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pardeep Kumar and Another v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajinder Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sapna Mishra and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Daar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Chanda Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Dharampal Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sunita Teji Vs State of Punjab and Others