SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 70

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anoop Chitkara, J.
Shivani Jaiswal & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 343 of 2023
Decided On : 13-01-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mohan Singh Rana, Advocate, Harsimar Singh Sitta, Advocate

Article 21 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to provide immediate protection to individuals from apprehended threat to their lives and liberty.

Headnote:

Article 21 - Protection from Threat - The court invoked Article 21 of the Constitution of India to provide protection to petitioners claiming to be in a live-in relationship from apprehended threat to their lives and liberty by private respondents.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, claiming to be in a live-in relationship, sought protection from the State against apprehended threat to their lives and liberty by private respondents.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the concerned authorities to provide protection to the petitioners for one week, with the possibility of extension based on ground realities or the petitioners' request.

Issues: Apprehended threat to the lives and liberty of the petitioners in a live-in relationship.

Ratio Decidendi: The court invoked Article 21 of the Constitution of India to provide immediate protection to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions, without adjudicating on the merits of the case.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed to the extent mentioned above, and all pending applications were disposed of.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. - Fearing for their lives and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the petitioners who claim to be living in live-in relationship, after crossing eighteen years of age, 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 from the private respondents.

2. 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.

3. If the allegations of apprehension of threat to their lives 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, 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.

4. 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 residence, except for medical necessities, to buy household necessities, and for bereavements in the families of the close relatives or close friends. 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.

5. 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.

6. This order shall eclipse after thirty days from today.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top