Protection First, Inquiry Later: P&H High Court Mandates Immediate Safety for Runaway Couples

Chandigarh - In a significant ruling reinforcing the fundamental right to life, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has mandated that state authorities must provide immediate protection to runaway couples upon receiving a request, with any inquiry into the threat perception to follow only after safety has been secured. Justice Parmod Goyal asserted that the state cannot delay or deny protection through bureaucratic red-tape and that any refusal must be justified with a detailed, speaking order.

Case Background: A Plea for Safety

The court was hearing a criminal writ petition, Mandeep Kaur and Another vs State of Punjab and Others (CRWP-11443-2025) , filed by a young couple who had married of their own free will. The petitioners, Mandeep Kaur and her husband, approached the High Court seeking protection, stating they apprehended a serious threat to their lives and liberty from Ms. Kaur's father and brother (respondent Nos. 4 and 5), who were opposed to the marriage.

The couple had submitted a representation to the local police on October 19, 2025, pleading for protection, but received no response or assistance.

State's Position and Court's Rebuke

During the hearing, the counsel for the State of Punjab, on instructions from the concerned Station House Officer (SHO), informed the court that the representation had been received only the previous day and would be "decided in due course."

Justice Goyal strongly criticized this non-committal and delayed approach, terming it unacceptable in matters where lives are at stake. The court noted that such a stance "warrants discretion at the hands of SHO to decide whether to grant protection or not," which is contrary to the established legal duty of the state.

Court's Reasoning: The Primacy of Life and Liberty

The judgment laid down a clear and unequivocal protocol for police authorities in handling such sensitive cases, highlighting the grave dangers faced by couples who defy societal or familial norms.

> "In protection matter, the State authorities are bound to first provide protection and thereafter proceed further to find out whether any threat perception is made out or not... The threat to life is of urgent nature and has to be decided immediately and cannot be delayed," Justice Goyal observed in the order.

The court emphasized the following key principles: * Immediate Action is Non-Negotiable: The Nodal Officer must extend protection immediately upon receipt of an application. The matter cannot be "tangled in bureaucratic red-tapism." * Denial Requires Justification: If protection is to be denied at the initial stage, it can only be done by passing a "detailed speaking order giving reasons for denial." The court declared that a blanket denial of protection amounts to a violation of a citizen's fundamental right to life. * State Accountability: The court warned that authorities would be held liable for their inaction if any "untoward incident takes place" due to a failure to provide timely protection. * Acknowledging Social Realities: The judgment explicitly recognized the prevalence of "honour killing or protecting honour" as a real and present danger for young couples in the region, underscoring the critical need for an immediate state-sponsored safety net.

Final Directive

Concluding that the purpose of protection is defeated if a person remains unsafe despite approaching the authorities, the High Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (Respondent No. 2) to provide immediate protection to the petitioners.

Furthermore, the court ordered that the couple's representation be decided on the very same day it is formally received, by passing a speaking order. This directive ensures both immediate safety and a transparent, reasoned decision-making process from the police. The petition was disposed of with these clear instructions.