Allowed

Reshma and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Aug 2023CRWP/7761/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners living in a live-in relationship sought protection from the State fearing threats to their lives. The Court ordered police protection for one week subject to strict movement restrictions, clarified it did not constitute bail, and stated the order would expire after fifteen days.

What did the court decide?

Directing the concerned Superintendent of Police or SHO to provide protection to petitioners for one week, subject to restrictions on movement outside their residence.

Reshma and Anr. Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

2023:PHHC: 101242

¶2

CRWP No.7761-2023

¶3

¶4

122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

¶5

AT CHANDIGARH

¶6

CRWP No. 7761-2023 Date of decision: 07.08.2023

¶7

Reshma and another ...Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Punjab and others …Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶11

Present: Mr. Komalpreet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Hardik Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioners

¶12

Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶15

Fearing for their lives and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the petitioners, who claim to be living in live-in-relationship (petitioner No.2 being previously married and such marriage is still in subsistence), against the wishes of the private respondents, have come up before this Court by invoking their fundamental rights of life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the State to protect them.

¶16

Notices served upon the official respondents through the State's counsel. Given the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass, neither the response of official respondents nor the issuance of notices to the private respondents is required.

¶17

The times are changing fast, even in those lands that were left behind and stuck with the old ethos and conservative social milieu. We are governed by the rule of law and follow the Constitutional dharma. In the ever-evolving society, evolving the law with it, the time is to shift perspective from didactics of the orthodox society, shackled with 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 Article 21 of India’s constitution and the State is duty bound to protect life.

¶18

In MohdArif @ Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, (2014) 9 SCC 737, the Constitutional bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds,

¶19

[17]. As the determination of this case has to do with the fundamental right to life, which, among all fundamental rights, is the most precious to all human beings, we need to delve into Article 21 which reads as follows:

¶20

"21. Protection of life and personal liberty.-No person

¶21

Sonia Arora 2023.08.07 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

2023:PHHC: 101242

¶23

CRWP No.7761-2023

¶24

¶25

shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."

¶26

[18]. This Article has its origin in nothing less than the Magna Carta, (the 39th Article) of 1215 vintage which King John of England was forced to sign by his Barons. It is a little 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 after which, unshackled, it has become the single most important fundamental right under the Constitution of India, being described as one of a holy trinity consisting of a 'golden triangle' (see Minerva Mills v. Union of India, 1981 1 SCR 206 at 263), and being one of two articles which cannot be eclipsed during an emergency (Article 359 as amended by the Constitution 44th Amendment).

¶27

If the allegations of apprehension of threat to their lives turn out to be true, it might lead to an irreversible loss. This Court is not adjudicating on the validity of petitioners’ relationship 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 protection to the petitioners for one week from today. However, if the petitioners no longer require the protection, then at their request it may be discontinued even before the expiry of one week. After that, the concerned officers shall extend the protection on day-to-day analysis of the ground realities or upon the oral or written request of the petitioners.

¶28

This protection is subject to the stringent condition that from the time such protection is given, the petitioners shall not go outside the boundaries of the place of their residence, except for medical necessities, to buy household necessities, and for bereavements in the families of the persons who are close to them. However, petitioner(s) shall be at liberty to shift the residence(s) and if the new place falls with the district, then the protection shall be extended to such place. This restriction saves the petitioners from apprehended risk and ensures that the protection is not flaunted.

¶29

It is clarified that there is no adjudication on merits and that this order is not a blanket bail in any FIR. It is further clarified that this order shall not come in the way if the interrogation of the petitioners is required in any cognizable case. It shall also be open for the petitioner(s) to approach this Court again in case of any fresh threat perception.

¶30

This order shall eclipse after fifteen days from today .

¶31

There would be no need for a certified copy of this order, and any Advocate for the

¶32

Sonia Arora 2023.08.07 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

2023:PHHC: 101242

¶34

CRWP No.7761-2023

¶35

¶36

Petitioners and State can download this order and other relevant particulars from the official web page of this court and attest it to be a true copy. The concerned officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for immediate use.

¶37

Petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above . All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

¶38

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 07.08.2023 sonia arora Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶39

Sonia Arora 2023.08.07 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Reshma and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reshma and Anr. 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

Jaspreet Kaur through Happy Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Arjun Sain Vs State of Ut Chd.

Birender Singh Alias Birendra Singh Vs State of Haryana

Sanjeet @ Shakti Vs State of Haryana and Others

Dharamvir Singh Vs State Ofpb.

Manjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others