Authorities Liable For Any Harm If Protection Is Not Given To Couple Immediately Upon Request: Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has observed 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 having married against their wishes.
Justice Parmod Goyal said, “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 Court added that, it has always been fully aware about the prevalent socio-economic situation in the society and also the fact that violence in the name of honour killing or protecting honour takes place against such young boys and girls, who go against wishes of their parents or norms set by society and therefore, the authorities cannot be vested with the power to delay the protection to young couple without passing a speaking order giving reasons for denial of the protection.
"The authorities must take responsibility of their actions," it emphasised.
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.
The State counsel, upon instructions from the concerned Station House Officer (SHO), informed the Court that the petitioners' representation had been received only a day before the hearing and that the same would be “decided in due course.”
Taking strong exception to the non-committal stance of the State, the Court observed that in matters concerning protection of life and liberty, the duty of the 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 the State counsel's response “warrants discretion at the hands of the SHO to decide whether to grant protection or not,” which is impermissible.
The Court emphasized that threat to life is an urgent matter and cannot be entangled in “bureaucratic red-tapism.”
“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 for the refusal.
Significantly, the Bench 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 held that authorities cannot delay protection without passing a reasoned order and must take full responsibility for the consequences of their inaction.
In view of the above, the Court directed the respondent the Police Authority to provide immediate protection to the petitioners; and decide their representation by passing a speaking order on the same day.
Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for petitioners through VC.
Mr. Puru Jarewal, D.A.G., Punjab.
Title: Mandeep Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 428