Disposed

Smt. Seema v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Jan 2023CRLW/14/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking security for petitioners facing threats. Relying on constitutional morality, the Court directed them to approach the police for security without adjudicating the sanctity of their relationship or affecting criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to appear before the SHO with representation; SHO to analyze threat perceptions and provide security if necessitated.

Smt. Seema Vs State of Rajasthan — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 14/2023

¶3

Smt. Seema W/o Hadman Ram D/o Sh. Ridhakaran, Aged About 20 Years, B/c Sinwar (Jat), R/o Anwaliyasar Village, Teh. Jayal, Dist. Nagaur, Raj.

¶4

Hadman Ram S/o Sh. Nathuram, Aged About 26 Years, B/ c Kala (Jat), R/o Rol, Teh. Jayal, Dist. Nagaur, Raj.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur, Having Office Address At Station Road, Opp. Collector Office, Amar Singh Colony, Nagaur, Rajasthan- 341001.

¶9

Sho, Rol, Having Address At Rol, Dist. Nagaur, Raj.

¶10

Sho, Surpaliya, Having Address At Surpaliya, Dist. Nagaur, Raj.

¶11

Riddhkaran S/o Sh. Ramuram, B/c Sinwar (Jat), R/o Anwaliyasar Village, Teh. Jayal, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.).

¶12

Munni Devi W/o Sh. Riddhkaran, Aged About 40 Years, B/ c Sinwar (Jat), R/o Anwaliyasar Village, Teh. Jayal, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.).

¶13

Sagar S/o Sh. Riddhkaran, Aged About 24 Years, B/c Sinwar (Jat), R/o Anwaliyasar Village, Teh. Jayal, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.).

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. OP Sangwa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP

¶16

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶17

Order

¶18

05/01/2023

¶19

The petitioners have preferred this criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of necessary directions to the official respondents to provide

¶20

(2 of 4)

¶21

[CRLW-14/2023]

¶22

adequate security and protection to the petitioners on the ground that they are facing grave threat of life and liberty at the hands of private respondents.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for right to life and personal liberty under the ambit of fundamental rights and any threat to the same amounts to violation of the same.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

¶25

While keeping in mind a catena of precedent laws laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court has made the following observations in its judgment rendered in the case of Leela & Anr.

¶26

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition

¶27

No. 5045/2021, decided on 15.09.2021) :-

¶28

“30. It is sufficiently clear to this Court that the Hon’ble Apex Court’s standpoint is that there exists a duty of the State to protect and safeguard all fundamental rights, unless taken away by due process of law. Even if any illegality or wrongfulness has been committed, the duty to punish vests solely with the State, that too in attune with due process of law. In no circumstance can the State bypass due process, permit or condone any acts of moral policing or mob mentality. When the Right to life and liberty is even guaranteed to convicted criminals of serious offences, there can be no reasonable nexus to not grant the same protection to those in an “legal/illegal relationships”.

¶29

31. Had there been a question before this Court with regards the morality/ legality of live- in relationships and matters connected thereto, then perhaps the answer would have required more deliberation along those lines. However, in the context of the limited question this Court is posed with pertaining to the

¶30

(3 of 4)

¶31

[CRLW-14/2023]

¶32

application of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it is clear that the right to claim protection under this Article is a constitutional mandate upon the State and can be availed by all persons alike. There arises no question of this right to be waived off even if the person seeking protection is guilty of an immoral, unlawful or illegal act, as per the precedent law cited of the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, in this case, this Court does not wish to delve into the sanctity of relationships.

¶33

32. This Court finds itself firmly tied down to the principle of individual autonomy, which cannot be hampered by societal expectations in a vibrant democracy. The State’s respect for the individual independent choices has to be held high.

¶34

33. This Court fully values the principle that at all junctures constitutional morality has to have an overriding impact upon societal morality.

¶35

This Court cannot sit back and watch the transgression or dereliction in the sphere of fundamental rights, which are basic human rights.

¶36

The public morality cannot be allowed to overshadow the constitutional morality, particularly when the legal tenability of the right to protection is paramount.

¶37

34. This Court is duty bound to act as a protector of the rights of the individuals, which are under siege with the clear intention of obstructing the vision of Constitution.”

¶38

This Court thus disposes of the present petition with the direction to the petitioners to appear before the Station House Officer, Police Station, Rol, District Nagaur alongwith appropriate representation regarding their grievance. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Rol, District Nagaur shall in turn hear the grievance of the petitioners, and after analyzing the threat

¶39

(4 of 4) [CRLW-14/2023]

¶40

perceptions, if necessitated, may pass necessary orders to provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners.

¶41

It is made clear that any observation in this order shall not affect any criminal and civil proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

¶42

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶43

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶44

209-Sanjay/-

Smt. Seema v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Seema v. State of Rajasthan

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

Balgovind Trivedi Vs State of Rajasthan

Daulat Multani Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxmi Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan

Jerupa Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sarita Devi Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

Pooja Vs State of Rajasthan