Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

Minor’s Right to Choose: High Court Orders Protection for Girl Refusing Arranged Marriage

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Justice Manisha Batra directs police and Child Welfare Committee to ensure the safety and rights of Harmanpreet Kaur against family threats.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has issued a significant judgment under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ensuring the protection of a minor girl, Harmanpreet Kaur, who faced threats from her family after refusing an arranged marriage. Justice Manisha Batra’s decision mandates police intervention and Child Welfare Committee oversight to safeguard the minor’s life and liberty.

Harmanpreet Kaur, represented by family friends, sought the court’s intervention under Article 226, following threats and physical violence from her family after she refused to marry an elderly man. Evicted from her home, she sought refuge with family friends. Despite her representation to the police on June 11, 2024, no action was taken, prompting her to approach the High Court.

Justice Batra highlighted the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee the protection of life and liberty. The court noted the urgent need to safeguard Harmanpreet from coercion and physical harm due to her refusal of an arranged marriage.

The judgment emphasized the critical role of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The court directed that Harmanpreet be produced before the CWC to ensure her safety and well-being. “The court, in its capacity as parens patriae, must act in the best interest of the minor,” Justice Batra stated.

Justice Batra reiterated the importance of considering the minor’s representation to the police, underscoring that the threat to her life and liberty should not be ignored. The court cited similar cases where minors sought protection from familial threats after exercising their freedom of choice in matters of marriage.

The judgment reinforced the legal obligation of the state to protect individuals, especially minors, from threats to their life and liberty. The court drew parallels with previous cases, emphasizing that the police must act on credible threats and provide necessary protection.

Justice Manisha Batra remarked, “No person can be permitted or allowed to take law into their hands, and therefore, keeping in view the said aspect, the protection must be provided as permissible in law.” She further noted, “The court must ensure that the minor’s rights are safeguarded in compliance with the Juvenile Justice Act.”

The High Court’s decision mandates the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, to assess the threat perception and provide protection if necessary. The Child Welfare Committee is instructed to ensure the minor’s safety and submit a compliance report within two months. This landmark judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting minors’ rights and upholding their autonomy against coercive practices.

 

Date of Decision: 3rd July, 2024

Harmanpreet Kaur through Swarn Kaur and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and Others

Similar News