In a ruling that cuts through bureaucratic delay, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has declared that when couples face threats to their safety, the State’s duty is clear—protect them first, and investigate the threat later.
Justice Parmod Goyal, hearing a plea from a couple allegedly threatened by the woman’s family for marrying against their wishes, directed authorities to act without hesitation. The Court underscored that in matters of life and personal liberty, paperwork cannot come before protection.
“The State authorities are bound to first provide protection and thereafter proceed to find out whether any threat perception is made out or not,” the Court emphasized, calling immediate action a constitutional obligation rather than a bureaucratic choice.
The judge warned that if authorities fail to act swiftly and an untoward incident follows, the State will be held accountable. “The purpose of protection is defeated if a person remains unprotected despite approaching the authorities,” the order stated.
The couple had claimed that despite approaching the police, no action was taken on their plea for protection. The Court rejected the State’s argument that their representation would be processed “in due course,” saying that the very idea of “due course” is meaningless when lives hang in balance.
“The threat to life is urgent by nature and cannot be delayed,” the Court ruled. It also made it clear that denying protection without proper reasoning violates the constitutional right to life. “If protection is denied, it must be done by a detailed speaking order giving reasons. Otherwise, it amounts to violation of the right to life vested in a citizen.”
Referring to recurring instances of violence against couples marrying against familial or societal approval, the Court noted that the menace of so-called ‘honour’ crimes persists—and that only swift, decisive protection can prevent tragedy.
Reminding officials of their moral and legal duty, Justice Goyal said that nodal officers must act immediately on receiving such applications, extending protection first and verifying the threat later.
On the plea before it, the Court ordered police protection for the couple and instructed the State to issue a reasoned decision on their request thereafter.
The message was unambiguous: when life is in danger, hesitation has no place in governance.
