The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled that in cases where couples face threats to their relationship, the authorities are obligated to provide them protection even before assessing the level of threat [Mandeep Kaur and Another v State of Punjab and Others].

Justice Parmod Goyal said that authorities in such cases must act quickly and not allow the matter to be tangled in bureaucratic red-tapism.

"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 judge said.

In case protection is not granted immediately on a citizen's application, especially in cases where a couple is facing threats after marriage, the authorities would be liable if any untoward incident takes place, the Court added.

"The purpose of protection is defeated if a person remains unprotected despite approaching the authorities for protection," the Court said.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by a married couple who faced threats from the woman’s father and brother, as her family did not approve of their marriage.

The couple had earlier approached the police for protection, but allegedly no action was taken. The State's counsel told the Court that the couple's representation shall be decided in due course.

The Court stressed that such cases must be dealt with expeditiously as they involve the issue of threats to life.

"It is the duty of Nodal Officer to immediately extend protection on receipt of application for protection and make appropriate inquiry thereafter. The threat to life is of urgent nature and has to be decided immediately and cannot be delayed. In case an application for protection is received by Nodal Officer, Nodal Officer must extend the protection immediately and thereafter take step to find out whether threat perception exists or not," it said.

The Court further held that denial of protection constitutes a violation of the right to life, and that authorities must issue a reasoned order before refusing to grant protection.

"In case protection is denied, the same can only be denied by passing a detailed speaking order giving reasons for denial of protection at the initial stage. Denial of protection amounts to violation of right to life vested in a citizen," the Court's order said.

The High Court noted that on various occasions it has commented on the need for extending protection to couples facing threats in such cases, where young boys and girls marry against the wishes of their parents.

Considering the history of violence in such cases, the Court said the authorities must take responsibility for their actions, particularly when denying the protection.

"The Court has always been fully aware about the prevalent socio-economic situation in the society and also the fact that violence in the name of honour killing or protecting honour takes place against such young boys and girls, who go against wishes of their parents or norms set by society and therefore, the authorities cannot be vested with the power to delay the protection to young couple without passing a speaking order giving reasons for denial of the protection," the single judge said.

On the present couple's plea, the Court directed the police to provide protection to them and then take a final decision on their representation by passing a reasoned order.

Advocate Rahul Garg represented the petitioners.

Deputy Advocate General Puru Jarewal represented the State of Punjab.

[Read Order]