Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 25324
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
Rajee. R – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 11012 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Smt.Aiswarya Krishnan, Shri.Abhijay Vijay
No police protection needed absent intent to harm; future threats actionable on intimation.
Headnote:First Paragraph: Petitioner sought police protection under Article 226 due to apprehended harm from private respondents and to attend a church election. Court noted counsel for respondents 4-7 denied intent to harm. Court found no existing threat as election date had passed, rendering specific relief infructuous. Second Paragraph: Issue framed as need for police protection against potential harm. Ratio: Apprehension of threat does not exist absent intent to harm; general direction for future protection if intimated. Third Paragraph: Writ petition disposed with observation for police action on future threats.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. respondents deny harm; specific relief infructuous. (Para 2) |
JUDGMENT
The reliefs sought for in the writ petition are as follows:
“ i).Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding respondents 2 to 3 to provide adequate and effective police protection to the life of the petitioner and her family and to ensure that they are able to peacefully reside in their house and move about without any threat or obstruction from respondents 4 to 7 or their associates.
ii) Issue a further writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, commanding respondents 2 to 3 to provide specific police protection to the petitioner and her family to enable the petitioner to enter the Mavelikkara Marthoma Church and participate in the Bhadrasana election scheduled to be held on 22-03- 2026, without any hindrance from the respondents 4-7.”
2. Though petitioner has primarily sought for police protection apprehending harm, the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 7 submitted that the said respondents have no intention to cause any harm to the petitioner. It was further pointed out that the meeting scheduled was on 22.03.2026 and hence, relief No.(ii) has become infructuous.
.
3 Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, as well as the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 7, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction.
Since respondents 4 to 7 have no intention to cause any harm, the apprehension of threat to the life of the petitioner does not exist while relief No.(ii) has become infructuous by passage of time. Notwithstanding the above, if any threat is apprehended and any written intimation is given to the 3rd respondent to that effect, appropriate steps will be initiated by the said respondent to avert such a situation.
With the above said observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
