Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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