Trial Courts Must Award Just Compensation In POCSO Cases Beyond Fine Amounts; Interim Payment No Reason To Deny Final Relief: Madras High Court Section 482 CrPC Power Not For Conducting 'Mini-Trial'; Disputed Facts Must Be Adjudicated At Trial: Allahabad High Court Right To Walk On Demarcated Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right; Municipal Authorities Under Enforceable Duty To Provide Pedestrian Infrastructure: Supreme Court Right To Walk Is A Fundamental Right Under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21; Priority Over Motorised Vehicles: Supreme Court Municipal Commissioner Is Disciplinary Authority For All Employees Post-1993 Amendment; Existing Regulations Can't Fetter Statutory Power: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Force Plaintiff To Accept Monetary Compensation Instead Of Removal Of Encroachment Without Prayer: Supreme Court Recruitment Merit Is Not A Vested Right; Public Interest Justifies Disclosing Marks Of Candidates Outside Selection Zone: Supreme Court Special Police Establishment Not An 'Intelligence & Security Organisation', State Cannot Exempt It From RTI Act: Supreme Court Medical Practitioner Not Negligent Merely Because Result Was A Failure If Procedure Adopted Was Acceptable To Medical Science: Calcutta High Court Long Service Cannot Be Denied Regularization On Mere Technicalities If Appointment Wasn't Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Nomination Paper Can Only Be Challenged Through Election Petition; Article 329(b) Bars Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court NI Act | Benefit Of Presumptions Under Sections 118 & 139 Not Available If Complainant Lacks Direct Knowledge Of Transaction: Kerala High Court Landowners Entitled To Solatium Under National Highways Act; Failure To Grant Is Ground To Challenge Award Under Section 34: MP High Court Transfer Policy Only Broad Guideline, Not Enforceable Under Article 226/227 In Absence Of Mala Fides: Rajasthan 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