-
by sayum
18 February 2026 10:41 AM
“Denial of Protection in Honour-Based Threat Cases Is a Violation of Article 21…. Authorities Cannot Hide Behind Bureaucracy When Life Is at Risk”: In a strongly worded judgment Punjab and Haryana High Court held that delaying protection to citizens facing honour-based threats amounts to a direct violation of their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Justice Parmod Goyal observed that once an application seeking protection is made, the “Nodal Officer must extend the protection immediately... and thereafter take steps to find out whether threat perception exists or not.”
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by Mandeep Kaur and Harmandeep Singh, a couple who had entered into a marriage of their own free will, but were facing serious threats from the woman's family – specifically her father and brother – for going against their wishes. Despite submitting a formal representation seeking protection on 19.10.2025, the authorities had taken no action, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court under its criminal writ jurisdiction.
When the matter came up for hearing, the State’s response was strikingly non-committal. The Deputy Advocate General, on instructions from the SHO, informed the Court that the representation had been received only the day before and “shall be decided in due course.” This attempt to defer urgent action drew sharp criticism from the bench.
Justice Parmod Goyal categorically rejected the idea that life-and-death matters can be subject to discretionary decisions by police officials. He ruled:
“In a protection matter, authorities must act quickly and matter cannot be allowed to be tangled in bureaucratic red-tapism.”
He further held that "denial of protection amounts to violation of right to life vested in a citizen."
The Court emphasised that in cases where young couples enter into matrimonial alliances against the wishes of their families, the state’s duty to protect them is immediate and unconditional. In such sensitive matters, the authorities “must not delay protection without passing a speaking order giving reasons for the denial.”
Highlighting the real risk posed by honour-based violence, the judgment pointedly remarked:
“Violence in the name of honour killing or protecting honour takes place against such young boys and girls who go against the wishes of their parents or norms set by society...”
The bench held that it was constitutionally impermissible for protection to be withheld or postponed pending inquiry or administrative procedure. The Court declared that in such cases:
“The authorities shall be made liable for their inaction if any untoward incident takes place due to delay in granting protection.”
The judgment thus makes it explicitly clear that Article 21 does not permit the luxury of procedural discretion when life is under threat. The judicial direction is not just a declaration of constitutional law but also a warning to erring authorities: if life is lost due to inaction, accountability will follow.
In conclusion, the Court allowed the petition, directing the concerned SHO (Respondent No. 2) to provide immediate protection to the couple and to decide the representation on the same day, by passing a reasoned (speaking) order. The petitioners were also granted liberty to approach the Nodal Officer directly or through counsel for redressal of future concerns.
The Court disposed of the matter while reinforcing the primacy of Article 21:
“The purpose of protection is defeated if a person remains unprotected despite approaching the authorities for protection.”
This ruling reiterates the judiciary's firm stance that the right to life and liberty cannot be suspended by administrative delays, especially in contexts where honour, control, and violence intersect. It further calls upon State machinery to respond swiftly, responsibly, and constitutionally in safeguarding individual autonomy and safety.
Date of Decision: 24.10.2025
