Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 86688
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Mandeep Pannu, J
Lovepreet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRWP-6910-2026(O&M)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ritesh K Sharma
For the Respondents: Sahil Chowdhary
The High Court may direct police authorities to consider representations for police protection regarding life and liberty, provided the petitioners are major, without validating the legality of their marriage.
Headnote:The case involves a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking protection of life and liberty by a couple who entered into a marriage against the wishes of their family members. The petitioners filed a representation before the police authorities expressing apprehension of harm, which remained unaddressed. The Court observed that the petitioners appeared to be major and entitled to protection of their fundamental rights regarding life and liberty. The core issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to police protection based on their apprehension of threat from family members. Relying on the constitutional guarantee of life and liberty, the Court reasoned that while the legality of the marriage remains subject to the jurisdiction of competent matrimonial courts, the state has a duty to ensure the protection of the lives of its citizens regardless of the validity of the marital status. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the police authorities to consider the representation and take necessary measures to ensure the petitioners' safety without providing any judicial seal of validity to the marriage.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seeking protection of life and liberty following an inter-family or controversial marriage. (Para 1 , 2 , 5) |
| 2. judicial mandate to police to consider threat perception for adult petitioners without legitimizing the marriage performance. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents, who are none other than the family members of the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks protection of life and liberty of the petitioners by contending that both of them are major and have married each other against the wishes of the private respondents and to seek appropriate protection from the authorities, they submitted a representation dated 05.06.2026 (Annexure P-5) in this regard to the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, but are still apprehensive about their security in view of the apparent inaction and alleged clout of their family members-respondents.
3. Notice of motion only to official respondents.
4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sahil Chowdhary, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the official respondents. A copy of the paper-book be handed over to him during the course of the day.
5. Both of them do appear to have crossed the age of majority as seen from the copies of documents filed and have married each other, in support of which, Marriage Certificate (Annexure P-3) and Marriage Photographs (Annexure P-4) have been placed on record.
6. Thus, the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar is directed to consider the representation dated 05.06.2026 (Annexure P-5) qua threat perception and take appropriate steps to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners.
7. It is nevertheless clarified that this order is issued only on the premise that the petitioners have crossed the age of majority as seen from the documents placed on record being their Aadhar Cards as Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively. This would not ipso facto amount to granting any seal of approval on the legality of their marriage which essentially would come in the domain of the concerned Matrimonial Courts. Further, they would not be entitled for any protection against their arrest or continuance of any criminal proceedings, if otherwise, found to be involved in commission of any cognizable offence(s).
8. The petition is disposed of with the above direction.
9. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
