Yavanika Dwivedi and Another Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Yavanika Dwivedi and Another Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim protection of life and liberty: the concerned Superintendent of Police (or a delegated/authorized officer) to provide appropriate protection to the petitioners for one week, extendable thereafter on day-to-day analysis of ground realities or on the petitioners' oral/written request; subject to conditions (avoidance of parties, bars, picnics and other risky areas; SHO-led security assessment; withdrawal option if petitioners defy advice on disputed places); the order is not an adjudication on merits, is not blanket bail in any FIR, does not bar interrogation in cognizable cases, and eclipses after fifteen days.

¶unnumbered-operative-para

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, fearing for life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, are entitled to protection through the State by invoking the fundamental right of life under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Court's answer

In the facts peculiar to this case, the concerned Superintendent of Police, or any officer to whom such powers have been delegated or authorized, shall provide appropriate protection to the petitioners for one week from the date of the order.

Ratio / Principle

After the initial one week, the concerned officers shall extend protection on day-to-day analysis of the ground realities or upon the oral or written request of the petitioners; protection may be discontinued earlier at the petitioners' request.

Key takeaways

Protection is subject to the stringent condition that the petitioners shall refrain from attending parties, bars, picnics or any area that may pose a risk to their life.ratio¶4
The SHO shall send police officer(s) to the petitioners' home to assess the required level of security, and once the assessment is done the officer shall provide adequate security without the petitioners having to contact them.ratio¶4
If the petitioners visit any disputed place, the security officer shall advise them to avoid it; if they still insist on going, the officer has the right to return to the police station due to the petitioners' defiance of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Protection of life and liberty — Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking police protection, petitioners apprehending threat at the hands of private respondents — Held: where apprehension of threat to life might lead to irreversible loss, the concerned Superintendent of Police or a delegated/authorized officer to provide appropriate protection for one week, extendable thereafter on day-to-day analysis of ground realities or on the petitioners' request, and discontinueable earlier at their request — Protection conditioned on petitioners refraining from attending parties, bars, picnics or any area posing a risk to life; SHO to send officers to assess required security level and provide adequate security without petitioners having to contact them; on visit to a disputed place, officer to advise avoidance and may return to the police station if petitioners insist — Clarified: no adjudication on merits; order not a blanket bail in any FIR; no bar to interrogation in any cognizable case; petitioners free to approach the Court afresh on fresh threat perception — Order to eclipse after fifteen days — Certified copy dispensed with, downloadable attested copy permitted — Petition allowed to the extent indicated; pending applications disposed.

1

CRWP No.1050 of 2025

133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRWP No.1050 of 2025

Date of Decision: 03.02.2025

Yavanika Dwivedi and another ...Petitioners

Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present: Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

Fearing for life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the petitioners, invoking the fundamental right of life guaranteed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have come up before this Court seeking protection through the State.

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.

If the allegations of apprehension of threat to life turn out to be true, it might lead to an irreversible loss. Thus, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, it shall be appropriate that the concerned Superintendent of Police, 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 requires 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.

The protection is subject to the stringent condition that from the time such protection is given, the petitioners shall refrain from attending parties, bars, picnics or any area that may pose a risk to their life. The SHO should send police officer(s) to petitioners’ home to assess the required level of security. Once the assessment is done, the officer should provide adequate security without the petitioners having to contact them.

MAMTA 2025.02.06 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

2

CRWP No.1050 of 2025

It is clarified that if the petitioners visit any disputed place and the security officer become aware of it, they should advise the petitioners to avoid going there. If the petitioners still insist on going, the officer has the right to return to the police station due to petitioners’ defiance of the order.

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 are required in any cognizable case. It shall also be open for the petitioners to approach this Court again in case of any fresh threat perception.

This order shall eclipse after fifteen days from today .

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

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

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

03.02.2025 M.Sikka

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

MAMTA 2025.02.06 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment