Rajasthan HC Directs Enhanced Police Protection For Couples Facing Social Harassment; Issues Detailed Procedural Directions

In the specific case before the Court, a young couple married in March 2024 was threatened by the woman’s family. The Court noted that it regularly receives 15-20 such petitions daily, often filed directly before the Court without prior police representation. This trend, according to the Court, highlights a systemic issue requiring judicial intervention to safeguard lives and liberties.

A Bench of Justice Sameer Jain emphasized the need for a robust institutional mechanism to ensure that police officers are accountable for failing to protect such individuals. The Court said, “the police authorities bear a constitutional responsibility to provide enhanced protection to the respective couples whose autonomy stands to be scuttled by social actors or groups who deploy extra-legal harassment or threats to entrench the dominant social norms.”

The Court noted, “this Court recognises the constitutional duty of the State and its instrumentalities to ensure that appropriate laws and policies are enacted and implemented to respect, protect, and promote the respective persons’ autonomy to choose their partners/spouses post attaining the age of majority. This conclusion flows inescapably from Articles 14 and 21 read with Articles 12 and 13 of the Constitution”

To ensure adequate protection for couples, whether married or in close relationships, the Court issued specific procedural directions. These include:

1. Representation Filing: Individuals facing threats can submit a representation to a designated Nodal Officer, who may or may not have territorial jurisdiction over the issue.
2. Immediate Protection: The Nodal Officer with jurisdiction must implement interim protective measures for the applicant if necessary, immediately upon receiving the representation.
3. Decision Timeline: The Nodal Officer must consider the representation, provide an opportunity for the applicant to be heard in person or through an advocate, and make a decision within seven days of receipt.
4. Appeal to Superintendent of Police: If dissatisfied with the Nodal Officer’s decision or inaction, the applicant can appeal to the Superintendent of Police, who must decide on the appeal within three days.
5. Complaint to Police Complaints Authority: Further appeals can be made to the Police Complaints Authority if the applicant is dissatisfied with the Superintendent's decision or if proceedings are delayed.
6. High Court Intervention: If the Police Complaints Authority’s decision is unsatisfactory or delayed, the applicant can approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Additionally, the Court directed the State government to develop an online mechanism for couples to file representations and track the status of their cases. The Court also recommended that nodal officers mediate with opposing family members in cases involving extra-legal threats from families.

The Court emphasized that its directions are not limited to couples but also extend to individuals facing extra-legal threats from family members or those pressured by dominant social or political actors. The Court added, “For instance, such protection may be required in the case of women who face threats of extra-legal violence from their family members, on account of their choice not to solemnize marriage at the family’s behest. Such protection may also be required in the case of the persons, especially senior citizens, who refuse to concede to the extra-legal monetary demands made by the dominant political/social actors in the locality.”

The Court also instructed the State government to ensure the appointment and proper constitution of Police Complaints Authorities at the state and district levels, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directives in Prakash Singh & Others v. Union of India & Others.

The matter is scheduled for review on September 9 for compliance with the Court’s directions.

Cause Title: X & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [2024:RJ-JP:32547]

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates Tribhuvan Narayan Singh, Sukhdev Singh Solanki, Chitrank Sharma, Moharpal Meena, Arvind Balot, Prakash Thakuriya, and Suresh Kumar

Respondents: Advocates GS Rathore and Atul Sharma