Dismissed

Shahruddin S/O Mubin, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Feb 2024CRLW/36/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought security directions due to threats regarding their live-in relationship. The Court referred constitutional morality principles, noted failure to approach the Nodal Officer, and disposed of the petition allowing future approach to the Nodal Officer.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to petitioners to approach the concerned Nodal Officer; stay applications disposed of.

Shahruddin S/O Mubin, Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:8313]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 36/2024

¶4

Shahruddin S/o Mubin, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village And Post Akata, Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur (Raj) . Aadhar Card No. 4402 4878 7368.

¶5

Aaisa D/o Sh. Assar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Hathin, Palwal ( Haryana) At Present Village And Post Akata, Tehsil Kaman District Bharatpur (Raj). Aadhar Card No. 9292 5870 3986.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur.

¶10

Superintendent Of Police, Bharatpur (Raj).

¶11

The Station House Officer Police Station, Kaman, District Bharatpur (Raj).

¶12

Sabir S/o Ayyub, R/o Gram Hathiya, Police Station Barsana, District Mathura (U.p).

¶13

Sajid S/o Ayyub, R/o Gram Hathiya, Police Station Barsana, District Mathura (U.p).

¶14

Shaukin S/o Ayyub, R/o Gram Hathiya, Police Station Barsana, District Mathura (U.p).

¶15

Fayyad S/o Muttar, R/o Gram Hathiya, Police Station Barsana, District Mathura (U.p).

¶16

Sharif S/o Muttar, R/o Gram Hathiya, Police Station Barsana, District Mathura (U.p).

¶17

Sarjina W/o Sahrudeen, R/o Village And Post Akata, Tehsil Kaman District Bharatpur (Raj).

¶18

Assar S/o Rahmat, R/o Near Ajmat Ki Basti, Ward No. 11, Hathin, Palwal ( Haryana).

¶19

Irsad S/o Assar, R/o Near Ajmat Ki Basti, Ward No. 11, Hathin, Palwal ( Haryana).

¶20

Samim S/o Assar, R/o Near Ajmat Ki Basti, Ward No. 11, Hathin, Palwal ( Haryana).

¶21

----Respondents

¶22

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D D Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP

¶23

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order

¶24

16/02/2024

¶25

(2 of 4) [CRLW-36/2024]

¶26

[2024:RJ-JP:8313]

¶27

Petitioners have preferred instant petition for issuance of necessary directions to official-respondents to provide adequate security and protection to them on the ground that they are facing grave threat of their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents. Parties are also present in person.

¶28

Counsel for petitioners submits that both petitioners are major and living together in live-in relationship and are willing to enter into marriage, however, private respondents are not happy with such relationship, living together of petitioners, and they are threatening petitioners for dire consequences.

¶29

Reference has been made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India [(2018) 10 SCC 1] , wherein the Supreme Court in relevant paras No.131, 132, 133 and 474 has held thus:

¶30

“131. The duty of the constitutional courts is to adjudge the validity of law on well-established principles, namely, legislative competence or violations of fundamental rights or of any other constitutional provisions. At the same time, it is expected from the courts as the final arbiter of the Constitution to uphold the cherished principles of the Constitution and not to be remotely guided by majoritarian view or popular perception. The Court has to be guided by the conception of constitutional morality and not by the societal morality.

¶31

We may hasten to add here that in the context of the issue at hand, when a penal provision is challenged as being violative of the fundamental rights of a section of the society, notwithstanding the fact whether the said section of the society is a minority or a majority, the magna cum laude and creditable principle of constitutional morality, in a constitutional democracy like ours where the rule of law prevails, must not be allowed to be trampled by obscure notions of social morality which have no legal tenability. The concept of constitutional morality would serve as an aid for the Court to arrive at a just decision

[2024:RJ-JP:8313]

[CRLW-36/2024]

(3 of 4)

which would be in consonance with the constitutional rights of the citizens, howsoever small that fragment of the populace may be. The idea of number, in this context, is meaningless; like zero on the left side of any number.

¶36

In this regard, we have to telescopically analyse social morality vis-a-vis constitutional morality. It needs no special emphasis to state that whenever the constitutional courts come across a situation of transgression or dereliction in the sphere of fundamental rights, which are also the basic human rights of a section, howsoever small part of the society, then it is for the constitutional courts to ensure, with the aid of judicial engagement and creativity, that constitutional morality prevails over social morality.

¶37

“474. The right to privacy enables an individual to exercise his or her autonomy, away from the glare of societal expectations. The realisation of the human personality is dependent on the autonomy of an individual. In a liberal democracy, recognition of the individual as an autonomous person is an acknowledgment of the State’s respect for the capacity of the individual to make independent choices. The right to privacy may be construed to signify that not only are certain acts no longer immoral, but that there also exists an affirmative moral right to do them.”

¶38

(Emphasis supplied)

¶39

In view of above proposition of law, constitutional rights of petitioners need to be protected in accordance with law.

¶40

During course of arguments, learned Public Prosecutor has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 04.01.2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench in SB Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.02/2019; Bajrang Lal Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan , in pursuance of which, a Circular dated 18.01.2019 came to be issued from the Office of Director General of Police, Rajasthan, providing for appointment of Nodal Officer at every

[CRLW-36/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:8313]

(4 of 4)

Police Station in the State of Rajasthan, for ventilation of grievances of newly married couple, including for adequate protection to them. However, petitioners have not approached before the concerned Nodal Officer for redressal of their grievance and have directly approached this Court by way of present criminal writ petition.

¶45

Learned counsel for petitioners does not dispute the aforesaid contentions made by learned Public Prosecutor. 6. This Court in the present writ petition is not inclined to examine legality and validity of the status of parties under which they are living together, however, in view of legal proposition that every citizen has a fundamental right of his/ her life and liberty, this petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners to approach before the concerned Nodal Officer for ventilation of their grievances. In case, petitioners move any application, it is expected from the concerned Nodal Officer to take necessary action, after verifying the facts, if required.

¶46

However, it is made clear that this order will not affect the civil/ criminal proceedings, if any, in the present matter.

¶47

Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶48

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶49

RONAK/88

Shahruddin S/O Mubin, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahruddin S/O Mubin, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rinku S/O Ashok Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Akanksha Yadav Daughter of Shri Ramlakhan Yadav, Wife of Shri Abhijeet Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Khushnuma Daughter of Mohammed Shamim, Wife of Sahid Khan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Nidhi Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Saurabh Agarwal Son of Shri Rajendra Agarwal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamlesh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.