The Rajasthan High Court Yesterday (August 2nd) observed that police authorities have a constitutional responsibility to provide enhanced protection to couples facing threats or harassment from social actors or groups enforcing dominant social norms.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
JAIPUR: The Rajasthan High Court emphasized that police authorities have a constitutional duty to provide enhanced protection to couples who face threats or harassment from social actors or groups enforcing dominant social norms.
Justice Sameer Jain highlighted the necessity of an institutional mechanism to ensure police accountability in protecting such couples.
He stated,
“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.”
In light of this, the Court issued a procedure to ensure that couples, whether married or simply in a close relationship, receive adequate police protection. These directions extend to individuals facing threats due to their choice of partner or spouse.
Key points from the Court’s directions include
- Individuals fearing threats can file a representation before a designated Nodal Officer, irrespective of the officer’s territorial jurisdiction.
- The Nodal Officer with territorial jurisdiction must implement measures to ensure interim protection for the applicant immediately if necessary.
- This Nodal Officer must consider the representation, provide an opportunity for the applicant to appear and be heard, and decide on the matter within seven days.
- If dissatisfied with the Nodal Officer’s decision or inaction, the applicant can escalate the matter to the Superintendent of Police, who must decide within three days.
- Further dissatisfaction allows the applicant to file a complaint with the ‘Police Complaints Authority’.
- If unresolved by the Police Complaints Authority or if proceedings are unduly delayed, the applicant can invoke the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court also urged the State government to create an online system for couples to file representations and track the proceedings. Moreover, in situations where couples face threats from family members, the Nodal Officer may facilitate mediation with the opposing family.
Significantly, the Court noted that its directions apply beyond just couples. For example,
“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.”
These directions were issued while hearing the case of a young couple who married in March and were threatened by the woman’s family.
The Court observed that approximately 15-20 such petitions are filed daily, often without first approaching the police. It remarked,
“This Court considers the filing of a sizeable number of petitions relating to police protection by persons who apprehend extra-legal threats to their safety, with most such petitions being filed before this Court at the first instance, to be indicative of an underlying systemic malaise which requires the intervention of this Court for the respective persons’ lives and liberty to be safeguarded.”
Additionally, the Court directed the State government to ensure that Police Complaints Authorities at the state and district levels are appointed and constituted per the Supreme Court’s directions in Prakash Singh and others v. Union of India and others.
The matter is scheduled for compliance on September 9.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Rajasthan HC
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
