Police Must Protect Those Facing Extra-Legal Threats; Rajasthan HC Orders State to Immediately Constitute Police Complaints Authority as Per Prakash Singh Judgment - 2024-08-02

Legal Articles | Court & Judgment Updates

Rajasthan HC Mandates Robust Protection Mechanism Against Extra-Legal Threats, Orders Immediate Police Accountability Body Constitution

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant judgment by Justice SameerJain , has underscored the constitutional and statutory duty of the State, particularly police authorities, to protect individuals facing threats of extra-legal harassment or violence from social actors or groups. The court highlighted the prevalent issue of individuals, especially couples who marry against societal norms, being forced to approach the High Court directly due to police inaction or even collusion, and directed the State Government to establish a clear, accessible, and time-bound mechanism for providing police protection.

Crucially, the High Court strongly criticized the State of Rajasthan for its prolonged failure (18 years) to comply with the Supreme Court's directions in the landmark Prakash Singh case regarding the constitution of independent Police Complaints Authorities, ordering the State to do so within one month.

Case Background and Systemic Issues

The ruling came in a writ petition filed by a major couple married on March 1, 2024, who apprehended threats from the wife's family over their marriage. They sought directions against police authorities (respondents 2-5) to ensure their safety, stating a representation to the police had not been duly considered.

The court noted that it receives approximately 15-20 similar petitions daily, often filed at the first instance, indicating a systemic issue where individuals feel compelled to bypass the police and approach the High Court for protection. Submissions from members of the Bar corroborated these concerns, citing hesitancy among such couples to approach police due to fears that their constitutional rights might not be protected, or even further violated. They pointed to instances of police non-response, harassment based on social prejudices, and alleged collusion with families, sometimes leading to illegal detention, particularly for inter-caste or inter-faith couples.

Constitutional Mandate and Supreme Court Precedents

Justice Jain affirmed that persons who have attained the age of majority have a constitutionally protected autonomy to choose their partner/spouse, citing Articles 14 (Equality before law) and 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. The court relied heavily on Supreme Court judgments:

• Lata Singh v. State of UP (2006): This judgment recognized the autonomy of major individuals in inter-caste/inter-faith marriages and strongly condemned extra-legal coercion, directing police nationwide to protect such couples.
• Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018): This case dealt with 'honour' crimes, reiterating that choice of partner is integral to dignity and personal autonomy under Article 21. It condemned extra-legal violence as an affront to the Rule of Law and directed State Governments to establish 'safe houses' and police to ensure protection.

The High Court held that the State and police have a constitutional duty to ensure such couples can exercise their choices unfettered by extra-legal threats. This duty flows from Articles 14 and 21, read with the definition of 'State' under Article 12, and is reflected in statutory provisions like Section 29 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007, and prevention of cognizable offences sections (Sections 168, 169 BNSS 2023 / 149, 150 CrPC 1973).

Critique of Existing Accountability Mechanism

The court then turned its attention to police accountability, referencing the Supreme Court's directions in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) , which aimed to shield police from external influences and ensure accountability. The court found that the 'Police Accountability Committees' established under the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 (Sections 62-69) fell short of the Prakash Singh mandate.

The court pointed out significant dilutions in the Rajasthan mechanism concerning: * Composition: Unlike Prakash Singh , which mandated retired High Court/Supreme Court judges for state-level and retired District Judges for district-level authorities, the Rajasthan Act allows the State Government to appoint any 'independent member' as Chairman. * Method of Selection: The Act gives the State Government discretion over appointments and removals, lacking the safeguards of panel preparation by the Chief Justice or independent bodies like the State Human Rights Commission, as directed by the Supreme Court. * Nature of Recommendations: Recommendations by the Rajasthan Committees are not binding on the authorities, unlike the binding recommendations envisioned in Prakash Singh .

The High Court concluded that the existing mechanism in Rajasthan is effectively an "in-house/internal mechanism" subject to political considerations, incapable of ensuring genuine police accountability and a shift towards a rights-based culture.

Court's Directives for Protection and Accountability

Acknowledging its own limitations in fact-finding under Article 226, the court deemed police authorities better equipped for assessing factual scenarios and implementing protective measures. To ensure police adequately discharge their duties and are held accountable, the court delineated a detailed procedure for applicants seeking protection against extra-legal threats, applicable generally to all persons, not limited to couples:

1. Representation: Applicants can file a representation with a designated Nodal Officer (physical, online, or through advocate). The State must publicize the procedure, contact details, and establish an effective online system and helplines/email.
2. Zero FIR Principle: Nodal Officers must accept representations irrespective of territorial jurisdiction, assist applicants in reaching the correct Nodal Officer within 3 days, and coordinate interim protection.
3. Nodal Officer Action: The territorial Nodal Officer must provide an opportunity for hearing within 7 days of receiving the representation, ensuring interim protection immediately if required. Proceedings must be recorded via CCTV.
4. Decision & Measures: If a threat is confirmed, measures like police deployment or residence in shelter homes (for couples, as per Shakti Vahini ) must be implemented. Reasons for not implementing requested measures must be recorded. Mediation with family, if done, must occur after protection measures and ensure the applicant's rights and autonomy are protected.
5. Tiered Remedies: If aggrieved by the Nodal Officer's action/inaction, applicants can file a representation with the Superintendent of Police, who must decide within 3 days.
6. Police Complaints Authority: If still aggrieved, applicants can file a complaint with the appropriate level of the Police Complaints Authority, which the State Government is now mandated to constitute within one month as per Prakash Singh . These PCA recommendations against delinquent officers shall be binding .
7. High Court Recourse: Recourse to the High Court under Article 226 is available only after exhausting the remedies before the Nodal Officer, SP, and PCA, with disclosure of prior steps taken.

The court directed the State Government to incorporate these directions into a Standard Operating Procedure (SoP), publicize it widely, and ensure the online system, helplines, and designated officers' details are functional and accessible.

Justice Jain listed the case for compliance on September 9, 2024, specifically to ascertain the promulgation of the SoP and the constitution of the Police Complaints Authorities in accordance with the Prakash Singh judgment, warning of potential court intervention if compliance is not achieved within the stipulated timeline. A copy of the judgment has been sent to the Chief Secretary for compliance. The petitioners in the instant case were granted interim protection by the court until their representation, filed under the new procedure, is decided.

The judgment marks a critical step towards bolstering the protective mechanisms for individuals facing extra-legal threats and enforcing long-delayed police accountability reforms in Rajasthan.