Established the constitutional obligation of the State to protect the autonomy of couples facing extra-legal threats, mandating police reforms and procedural changes for safety measures.

ORDER :

PREFATORY REMARKS:

1. The instant Writ Petition involves a crucial issue regarding the constitutional and statutory obligations of the State, and particularly the police authorities, qua safeguarding the life and liberty of persons who face threats of extra-legal harassment and/or violence at the hands of other social actors or groups.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS AND MEMBERS OF THE BAR:

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners no. 1 and 2 are a major couple who solemnized their marriage with mutual consent on 01.03.2024. It is submitted that the petitioners apprehend a threat to their safety from respondents no. 6 to 10, who are the family members of petitioner no. 1, and who perceive the petitioners’ marriage as a threat to their honor and social standing.

3. Respondents no. 2 to 5 are the police authorities against whom the petitioners have prayed for directions to the effect that the petitioners’ safety is ensured. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a representation highlighting the threat to the petitioners’ lives, and seeking the implementation of appropriate measures to ensure the petitioners’ safety, was filed before the police authorities on 01.03.2024. Nevertheless, the said representation was not duly considered by the police authorities.

4. This Court has often been called on to adjudicate cases wherein persons who apprehend extra-legal threats to their lives and liberty are compelled to approach this Court for the requisite directions to the police authorities to ensure their safety. This Court notes that on a daily basis, approximately 15-20 petitions with prayers for the reliefs as aforementioned are filed before this Court, often at the first instance and without the respective persons having earlier filed a representation before the respective police authorities for the implementation of adequate measures to safeguard the respective persons’ lives and liberty. This Court is conscious of the institutional limitations of its adjudicatory processes in deciding the complex, and often disputed, questions of fact that are raised in petitions of this nature. For instance, to adjudicate on the petitions pertaining to police protection that are filed by persons who are married/ are in a close relationship, including the instant writ petition, this Court must reach findings of fact on questions including the age and nationality of the respective persons seeking protection; the nature of the relationship between the parties (marriage, live-in relationship etc.); and the existence of free consent on part of the respective parties, especially the respective women, qua the marriage/ close relationship. Given the nature of this Court’s jurisdictions under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC 1973), this Court cannot adjudicate on such questions of fact through deploying the mechanisms for fact-finding that are available to and deployed by Courts of first instance. Nevertheless, this Court considers the filing of a sizeable number of petitions relating to police protection by persons who apprehend extra-legal threats to their safety, with most such petitions being filed before this Court at the first instance, to be indicative of an underlying systemic malaise which requires the intervention of this Court for the respective persons’ lives and liberty to be safeguarded.

5. Accordingly, vide the order dated 03.07.2024, this Court invited the members of the Bar at large to address this Court on the next date of hearing regarding the existing mechanisms for the grant of police protection to persons who apprehend such threats, and the lacunae in these mechanisms. The members