The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismisses plea for round-the-clock security, emphasizes need for clear evidence of imminent threat.
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Dr. Rani Sharma and others, seeking continuous police protection due to threats arising from an inter-religious marriage. The petitioners had approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution, citing threats to their life and liberty due to their union, which involved a religious conversion.
The court, presided over by Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, emphasized that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount. However, it underscored that the deployment of specific security arrangements through a writ of mandamus requires unimpeachable evidence of an ongoing threat. The court found that the petitioners' claims were based on general apprehensions and isolated incidents, which did not justify continuous, specialized police protection.
The petitioners, who married in 2019 after one party converted from Islam to Hinduism, reported receiving threats from family members and other individuals opposed to their marriage. Despite previous court orders for police protection, the petitioners argued that the security arrangement was inadequate, especially after an armed gunman was replaced with an unarmed Home Guard.
The court referred to the Supreme Court's guidelines in cases like Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, which emphasize state responsibility in protecting couples in inter-religious marriages. While acknowledging these guidelines, the court clarified that its earlier directive was not a mandate for continuous, round-the-clock security.
Justice Pillai remarked on the increasing trend of petitions seeking protection in inter-religious marriages, noting the necessity of substantiated threats rather than mere apprehensions for granting such reliefs. The court affirmed that while the police are obligated to maintain law and order, extraordinary judicial intervention in security matters is unwarranted without clear evidence.
The judgment concluded by directing the petitioners to seek recourse through local police channels for any future threats, thus dismissing the writ petition. The ruling highlights the delicate balance courts must maintain between individual rights and administrative prudence in security matters.
Bottom Line:
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking continuous police protection for petitioners in an inter-religious marriage dismissed. Court observed that specific reliefs for micromanagement of security details cannot be granted under writ jurisdiction unless substantiated by clear proof of an imminent threat.
Statutory provision(s): Article 21, Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Dr. Rani Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (Madhya Pradesh)(Indore) : Law Finder Doc id # 2901419
