Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

Protection of Life and Liberty Paramount; Temporary Police Protection Granted Rules Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a pivotal ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, underscored the importance of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court issued orders for temporary police protection to a newly married couple who alleged threats from their families for marrying against their wishes.

The petitioners, Tamanna Parmar and her spouse, approached the High Court seeking protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. They claimed that their fundamental rights to life and personal liberty were threatened by their own family members, due to their marriage, which was disapproved.

Tamanna and her partner’s plea highlighted their precarious situation, fearing harm from private respondents—essentially, their relatives. The issue revolved around the fundamental right to life and personal safety, necessitating judicial intervention for safeguarding these constitutional guarantees.

Immediate Protection: Justice Chitkara ordered the concerned Superintendent of Police and other designated officers to provide appropriate protection to the petitioners for a week, extendable based on real-time assessments or at the petitioners’ request. “In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is imperative to ensure the safety of the petitioners without any delay,” observed Justice Chitkara.

Conditions of Protection: The court mandated that during the period of protection, the petitioners should avoid engaging in high-risk activities. The law enforcement officers were tasked to assess and provide the necessary level of security proactively.

Family Reconciliation Efforts: Acknowledging the natural familial bonds, the court facilitated a controlled meeting between Tamanna and her family under strict supervision. “Such meetings are critical to preserving family relationships, even in contentious circumstances,” the judge noted.

Use of Court Orders: Significantly, the court allowed its orders to be downloaded directly from the official website for swift implementation, emphasizing the need for immediate compliance without bureaucratic delays.

Decision The petition was allowed to the extent of granting temporary protection and arranging supervised family meetings. The order is designed to balance the urgent need for security with ongoing efforts at family reconciliation.

Date of Decision: May 1, 2024

Tamanna Parmar and another vs. State of Punjab and others

Latest Legal News