Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Immediate Protection for Young Couple, Warns Authorities of Liability

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has emphasized that if protection is not granted immediately upon a citizen's request—particularly in cases involving marriage—the authorities concerned shall be held liable for any untoward incident resulting from their inaction.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by a young couple seeking protection of life and liberty from the woman’s family, who were allegedly threatening them for marrying against their wishes.

Court Observes Purpose of Protection Defeated if Delayed

Justice Parmod Goyal noted, “The purpose of protection is defeated if a person remains unprotected despite approaching the authorities for protection. This Court on various occasions has already gone in detail as to need of protection in such cases where young boys and girls have entered in matrimonial alliance against wishes of their parents."

Court’s Concern Over Honour Killing

The Bench further observed that it is fully aware of the prevalent socio-economic situation in society and the instances of violence in the name of honour killing. Such violence often targets young boys and girls who defy parental wishes or societal norms. The Court held that authorities cannot delay protection to a young couple without passing a detailed speaking order providing reasons for denial.

“The authorities must take responsibility of their actions,” the Court emphasized.

Facts of the Petition

The petitioners, who married of their own free will, approached the High Court seeking protection from the woman’s father and brother, fearing for their lives.

According to the petitioners, they had submitted a representation dated October 19, 2025, before the police authorities seeking immediate protection. However, no action was taken.

During the hearing, the State counsel informed the Court that the petitioners’ representation had been received only a day before the hearing and would be “decided in due course,” as per instructions from the concerned Station House Officer (SHO).

Court Strongly Criticizes State’s Non-Committal Stance

The Court remarked that in matters concerning protection of life and liberty, the duty of authorities is first to ensure protection and then to verify the threat perception.

“In protection matters, the State authorities are bound to first provide protection and thereafter proceed further to find out whether any threat perception is made out or not,” the Court said, adding that leaving discretion to the SHO to decide whether to grant protection is impermissible.

The Bench emphasized that threat to life is an urgent matter and cannot be entangled in “bureaucratic red-tapism.”

Immediate Directions by the Court

“It is the duty of the Nodal Officer to immediately extend protection on receipt of an application for protection and make appropriate inquiry thereafter,” the Court held, making it clear that any denial of protection must be supported by a detailed speaking order giving reasons.

Significantly, the Court observed, “In fact, in case protection is not awarded immediately on receipt of application made by citizen, especially in case of marriage, then the authorities shall be made liable for their inaction for not giving protection timely and seeking one or other report if any untoward incident takes place.”

The Court directed the Police Authority to provide immediate protection to the petitioners and to decide their representation by passing a speaking order on the same day.

Case Title: Mandeep Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab and Others