While dealing with a protection plea of a live-in couple, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that every person in the territory of India has an inherent and indefeasible fundamental right to life flowing from Article 21 of India’s constitution and the State is duty-bound to protect life and that we are governed by the rule of law and follow the Constitutional dharma.
The Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara further added that the times are changing fast, even in those lands that were left behind and stuck with the old ethos and conservative social milieu.
“In the ever-evolving society, evolving the law with it, the time is to shift perspective from didactics of the orthodox society, shackled with the strong strings of morality supported by religions to one that values an individual’s life above all”, the Bench added.
In this case, fearing for their lives and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, the petitioners who were in a live-in relationship, came up before the High Court seeking protection through the State, by invoking their fundamental rights of life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner’s counsel stated that the second petitioner was a married woman and she voluntarily went to the company of the first petitioner. He submitted that the petitioners were facing grave danger from the private respondents and that their lives needed to be protected even though the second petitioner was married to the fourth respondent.
The Court, after perusing the factual situation of the case, observed that if the allegations of apprehension of threat to their lives turn out to be true, it might lead to an irreversible loss.
Further, without adjudicating on the validity of petitioners’ marriage or her decision of cohabiting with the first petitioner but adhering to its fundamental duty of guarding their lives, the Court directed the concerned Superintendent of Police, SHO, or any officer to provide appropriate protection to the petitioners for one week from today.
Thus, the petition was allowed.
Case Name: Jai Nrain and another v. State of Punjab and others
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments