The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently awarded police protection to a married woman and her live-in partner, noting that it was the court’s fundamental responsibility to protect their lives.
Justice Anoop Chitkara, while admitting the petition, reasoned that we are guided by the rule of law and adhere to constitutional dharma.
He stated that events were swiftly changing and that, under Article 21, everyone in India had an inherent fundamental right to life, which the government was obligated to safeguard.
“We follow the Constitutional dharma and are guided by the rule of law.” The time has come to shift viewpoint from didactics of the orthodox society, tied by the tight strings of morality supported by religions, to one that values an individual’s life above everything,” the order stated.
A live-in couple – a married woman and a man whose companionship she had willingly preferred – claimed that they were being threatened by the former’s relatives.
The Single Judge was of the conclusion that if the petitioners’ fear of losing their life was accurate, it could result in lasting harm to them.
The Court further stated that it was not deciding on the validity of the woman’s marriage or her decision to cohabit with the petitioner, but rather was carrying out its fundamental responsibility of protecting their lives.
As a result, it was determined that ordering the police to provide adequate protection to the petitioners for one week from the date of the order was justified. Following this period, the petitioners’ request or a study of ground realities could lead to the protection being extended on a day-to-day basis.
However, the petitioners’ protection was conditional on them not leaving their home except for needs, in order to shield them from the feared danger.
“This protection is subject to the strict condition that, from the time such protection is granted, the petitioners shall not leave the confines of their place of residence, except for medical reasons, to purchase household necessities, and to attend bereavements in the families of persons close to them.”
The petition was granted based on these observations.
Advocate Vishneet Singh Kathpal represented the petitioners, while Advocate Rehatbir Singh Mann represented the defendants.
Case: Jai Nrain v. State of Punjab.
