Amandeep Kaur And ANR v. State Of Punjab And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No. 7686 of 2023 Date of Decision: 04.08.2023 Amandeep Kaur and another ...PeƟƟoners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Ms. Komal Thakur, Advocate for the peƟƟoners. Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Fearing for their lives and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the peƟƟoners, who claim to be in a live-in-relaƟonship, despite the male and female being previously married and such marriages are sƟll in subsistence, have come up before this Court seeking protecƟon through the State, by invoking their fundamental rights of life guaranteed under ArƟcle 21 of the ConsƟtuƟon of India, seeking direcƟon to the State to protect them. 2.
NoƟces served upon the official respondents through the State's counsel. Given the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass, neither the response of official respondents nor the issuance of noƟces to the private respondents is required. 3.
Counsel for the peƟƟoners submits that peƟƟoner No. 1 is married with respondent No. 8- Manpreet Singh and out of this wedlock, one child is born, who is residing with respondent No. 8. He further submits that peƟƟoner No. 2 is married with respondent No. 4-Rekha Rani and out of this wedlock, no child is born. 4.
The Ɵmes are changing fast, even in those lands that were leŌ behind and stuck with the old ethos and conservaƟve social milieu. We are governed by the rule of law and follow the ConsƟtuƟonal dharma. In the ever-evolving society, evolving the law with it, the Ɵme is to shiŌ perspecƟve from didacƟcs of the orthodox society, shackled with the strong strings of morality supported by religions to one that values an individual's life above all. Every person in the territory of India has an inherent and indefeasible fundamental right to life flowing from ArƟcle 21 of India's consƟtuƟon and the State is duty bound to protect life. 5.
In Mohd Arif @ Ashfaq v. Registrar, Supreme Court of India, 2022:INSC:1154 [Para 17] (2014) 9 SCC 737, the ConsƟtuƟonal bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,
[17]. As the determinaƟon of this case has to do with the fundamental right to life, which, among all fundamental rights, is the most precious to all human beings, we need to delve into ArƟcle 21 which reads as follows: "21. ProtecƟon of life and personal liberty.-No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."
[18]. This ArƟcle has its origin in nothing less than the Magna Carta, (the 39th ArƟcle) of 1215 vintage which King John of England was forced to sign by his Barons. It is a liƩle known fact that this original charter of liberty was faulted at the very start and did not get off the ground because of a Papal Bull issued by Pope Innocent the third declaring this charter to be void. Strangely, like Magna Carta, Art. 21 did not get off the ground for 28 years aŌer which, unshackled, it has become the single most important fundamental right under the ConsƟtuƟon of India, being described as one of a holy trinity consisƟng of a 'golden triangle' (see Minerva Mills v. Union of India, 1981 1 SCR 206 at 263), and being one of two arƟcles which cannot be eclipsed during an emergency (ArƟcle 359 as amended by the ConsƟtuƟon 44th Amendment). 6.
If the allegaƟons of apprehension of threat to their lives turn out to be true, it might lead to an irreversible loss. This Court is not adjudicaƟng on the validity of peƟƟoners' marriage but adhering to its fundamental duty of guarding their lives. Thus, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, it shall be appropriate that the concerned Superintendent of Police, SHO, or any officer to whom such powers have been delegated or have been authorized in this regard, provide appropriate protecƟon to the peƟƟoners for one week from today. However, if the peƟƟoners no longer require the protecƟon, then at their request it may be disconƟnued even before the expiry of one week. AŌer that, the concerned officers shall extend the protecƟon on day-to-day analysis of the ground realiƟes or upon the oral or wriƩen request of the peƟƟoners. 7.
This protecƟon is subject to the stringent condiƟon that from the Ɵme such protecƟon is given, the peƟƟoners shall not go outside the boundaries of the place of their residence, except for medical necessiƟes, to buy household necessiƟes, and for bereavements in the families of the persons who are close to them. However, peƟƟoner(s) shall be at liberty to shiŌ the residence(s) and if the new place falls within the district, then the protecƟon shall be extended to such place. This restricƟon saves the peƟƟoners from apprehended risk and ensures that the protecƟon is not flaunted. 8.
It is clarified that there is no adjudicaƟon on merits and that this order is not a blanket bail in any FIR. It is further clarified that this order shall not come in the way if the interrogaƟon of the peƟƟoners is required in any cognizable case. It shall also be open for the peƟƟoner(s) to approach this Court again in case of any fresh threat percepƟon. 9.
This order shall eclipse aŌer fiŌeen days from today.
10.
There would be no need for a cerƟfied copy of this order, and any Advocate for the PeƟƟoner and State can download this order and other relevant parƟculars from the official web page of this court and aƩest it to be a true copy. The concerned officer can also verify its authenƟcity and may download and use the downloaded copy for immediate use. PeƟƟon is allowed to the extent menƟoned above. All pending applicaƟons, if any, stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 04.08.2023 JyoƟ-II Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.