Right To Choose Partner: Rajasthan High Court Issues SOP For Police Protection Of Major Couples Facing Threats
Rajasthan High Court has issued a SOP, taking note of multiplicity of pleas filed by major couples apprehending threats of extra-legal harassment and violence at the hands of their families or other social actors or groups and thus seeking police protection. The Court highlighted that such threats are a direct attack on the constitutional rights of the major couples, especially under Articles...
Rajasthan High Court has issued a SOP, taking note of multiplicity of pleas filed by major couples apprehending threats of extra-legal harassment and violence at the hands of their families or other social actors or groups and thus seeking police protection.
The Court highlighted that such threats are a direct attack on the constitutional rights of the major couples, especially under Articles 14 and 21. The Court further stressed upon the institutional role of police in safeguarding the constitutional rights of such couples. In this regard, the Court issued directions to be put in place by the State Government to strengthen the mechanism that could protect not only such couples but any other individual who might be facing extra-legal threats to their lives.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain ordered,
Step 1- filing of the representation before the respective police office designated as the Nodal officer for deciding such representations. State authorities should publicize the procedure to file such representations and is also expected to create an online mechanism for the same.
Step 2- Mere lack of territorial jurisdiction not a ground with the Nodal Officer in Step 1 to dismiss the representation. He shall ensure that within 3 days, the applicant is able to file the representation before the appropriate Nodal Officer. In the interim, the applicant must be provided protection, if required.
Step 3- The Nodal Officer should give an opportunity of hearing to the applicant and the proceedings should be duly recorded through CCTV cameras.
Step 4- The Nodal Officer should provide interim protection, if required, and complete the proceedings within 7 days.
Step 4.1 If he concludes that extra-legal threats exists- he may deploy police personnel and ensure that applicant stay at shelter homes. If none of these measures are taken, reasons shall be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant.
Step 4.2 If the threats are being made by the family members, the Nodal Officer may try mediation but should ensure that the applicants are not pressurized or harassed during such mediation.
Step 5- If the applicant is aggrieved by inaction on part of Nodal Officer:
Step 5.1- May file representation before the superintendent of police who shall decide the matter within 3 days.
Step 5.2- If applicant is aggrieved by inaction on part of superintendent of police, representation may be filed before the appropriate level of Police Complaints Authority mechanism that was directed to be set up in every State and District by the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh and others vs. Union of India and others. Under this step, if the allegations against Nodal Officer and Superintendent of Police stands proved, appropriate criminal/civil proceedings to be initiated against them.
Step 6- where the proceedings are not concluded before the Police Complaints Authority within a reasonable period of time, the applicants can invoke Court's jurisdiction under Article 226.
The Court directed the State Authorities to appoint and constitute “Police Complaints Authority” at the State and District levels in Rajasthan within a month of the judgment. And if the State fails to do so, the Court shall intervene under Article 226 to make the necessary appointments.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that the above procedure was not limited to the major couples but shall be applied mutatis mutandis to anyone who might be apprehending extra-legal threats.
The development comes in a petition filed by a couple who wanted to solemnize their marriage but was facing threat from their families. It was argued that when the couple went to seek help from the police authorities, the representation was not duly considered by the police.
The Court had invited the members of the Bar to put forth the lacunae that might be existing in the current mechanism that was in place to deal with such matters. It was submitted by the members of the Bar that the couples were often hesitant to approach the police authorities because either these representations are not duly considered by the authorities or, on the worse side, the police often colludes with the social actors or the family members to harass the couple. Such police harassment increases in case of inter-faith couples. Hence, the police often legitimizes and entrenches the societal prejudices. And therefore, such couples were compelled to approach the Court.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India in which the choice of one's partner or spouse was recognized as an inherent facet of one's dignity and personal autonomy and thus protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this background, the Apex Court strongly condemned the practice of extra-legal harassment based on societal norms towards such couples.
Further, reference was made to the case of Lata Singh vs. State of UP in which the institutional role of the police in safeguarding major couples' personal choices was recognized and directions were issued for police authorities throughout India for ensuring that such couples were shielded from extra-legal harassment and/or violence.
In this light, the Court affirmed the recognition of rights of personal choice in relation to one's spouse to be part of Articles 14 and 21 and thus constitutional guarantees, and also recognized constitutional duty of the State and its instrumentalities to protect such rights. The Court further observed that if the police authorities failed to discharge such duty, there should be appropriate institutional mechanisms for ensuring accessibility of aggrieved persons and also accountability of defaulting police authorities.
“In such situations, not only do the constitutional guarantees of life and liberty of the respective couples stand to be negated, but the constitutional edifice of the Rule of Law itself stands threatened. Further, the extra-legal forms of harassment and violence which are apprehended by the respective couples are rooted in patriarchal social norms that refuse to recognise women's autonomy to determine the course of their lives. In this regard, 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.”
Title: Suman Meena & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 189