Refusing to grant police protection, Justice Pillai of the High Court’s Indore Bench said that courts cannot “assume the role of the security establishment” by dictating how security personnel should be deployed. He added that inter-caste or inter-faith couples regularly file several such petitions in courts without any clear and substantive evidence of threat. “This Court observes with concern the filing of a bundle of petitions where, in almost every inter-caste or inter-religion marriage, the couple registers a writ petition seeking continuous police protection without any clear, substantive, and unimpeachable evidence of an ongoing, imminent threat,” Justice Pillai stated in the order passed on 14th May.
“Every writ petition seeking such extraordinary protection must be substantiated by clear proof of threat, rather than general apprehensions or isolated incidents of suspicious vehicles, which primarily warrant regular police patrolling and investigation rather than personal armed guards,” the judge added.
The couple, residing in Ratlam, got married in 2019 as per Hindu customs at an Arya Samaj temple in Delhi. The wife, who was a Muslim, voluntarily converted to Hinduism. In her plea, the woman stated that when her family was informed about her marriage to a Hindu man and conversion to Hinduism, the couple received death threats from her family. Due to continuous danger to their lives, the couple had earlier approached the High Court in 2022. At that time, the High Court had directed the Ratlam Superintendent of Police to consider the couple’s application in accordance with the law, after which the local administration provided them with security.
However, on 13th April, the armed guard assigned to the couple was replaced with a Home Guard jawan who possessed neither a gun nor a mobile phone. No reason was provided for replacing the guard. This led to the filing of the present petition by the couple. The petition cited certain instances to highlight the security concerns being faced by the couple. It stated that an unknown individual once tried to stop their car, and a suspicious vehicle was loitering near their residence. The couple requested the court to grant 24-hour personal police protection and special nighttime security.
The state government opposed the couple’s plea before the High Court. After hearing both sides, the High Court observed that it cannot assume the role of security agencies or issue blanket orders to micromanage security details in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. “While the constitutional right to life under Article 21 is paramount, the issuance of a continuous writ of mandamus for the deployment of specific security details requires strict scrutiny,” the High Court said.
The High Court refused to pass a judicial mandate to the local administration to provide the couple with security. However, it reminded the local administration that it is their duty to maintain law and order and take swift action whenever they receive such a complaint. “This court finds that the specific reliefs prayed for by the petitioners regarding the micromanagement of their security detail cannot be granted under the writ jurisdiction,” the court said.
“Nonetheless, it remains the absolute statutory and constitutional duty of the police administration to maintain law and order. The authorities are obliged to take active, prompt, and appropriate action whenever a complaint of such nature is received,” it added.
