Introduction
In a landmark judgment, the Rajasthan High Court addressed the pressing issue of major couples facing extra-legal threats, often from their families or other societal actors, due to their choice of partner. Recognizing the gravity of the situation and its implications on constitutional rights, the Court issued a detailed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) aimed at ensuring the protection of such couples. This judgment underscores the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which safeguard personal liberty and equality.
Background
The case emerged from a petition filed by a couple intending to marry but facing severe threats from their families. Their plea for police protection was not adequately addressed by the local authorities, compelling them to seek judicial intervention. The Court's decision reflects its commitment to upholding constitutional rights and ensuring state accountability in protecting these rights.
Court's Observations
Justice Sameer Jain, presiding over the bench, emphasized that threats to major couples are direct attacks on their constitutional rights. The Court highlighted the role of police in safeguarding these rights and pointed out the need for a robust mechanism to protect individuals facing extra-legal threats. The judgment drew on precedents set by the Supreme Court, particularly the cases of Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India and Lata Singh vs. State of UP, which recognized the right to choose one’s partner as an inherent aspect of personal autonomy and dignity under Article 21.
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)
The SOP outlined by the Court includes several critical steps designed to ensure timely and effective protection for major couples:
Filing of Representation: The procedure begins with the filing of a representation before a designated Nodal Officer. The State authorities are instructed to publicize this procedure and create an online mechanism to facilitate the process.
Territorial Jurisdiction: The Nodal Officer must not dismiss a representation on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction. Instead, they must ensure that the applicant can file the representation before the appropriate officer within three days and provide interim protection if necessary.
Hearing and Recording: The Nodal Officer is required to give the applicant a hearing, duly recording the proceedings through CCTV cameras to ensure transparency.
Interim Protection and Final Decision: Interim protection must be provided if needed, and the proceedings should be concluded within seven days. If extra-legal threats are confirmed, the Nodal Officer may deploy police personnel or arrange for the applicant's stay in shelter homes. If these measures are not taken, reasons must be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant.
Family Mediation: In cases where threats originate from family members, the Nodal Officer may attempt mediation but must ensure that the applicants are not harassed or pressured.
Escalation of Grievances: If the applicant is dissatisfied with the Nodal Officer's actions, they may escalate the matter to the Superintendent of Police, who must decide within three days. Further inaction can be addressed by filing a representation with the Police Complaints Authority, established as per the Supreme Court's directive in the Prakash Singh case.
Judicial Recourse: Should the Police Complaints Authority fail to conclude the proceedings in a reasonable time, applicants have the right to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226.
Institutional Mechanisms and Accountability
The Court directed the State to establish and operationalize Police Complaints Authorities at both the state and district levels within a month. This step is crucial for ensuring accountability and providing a formal mechanism for addressing grievances against police inaction or misconduct.
Broader Implications
While the immediate context of the SOP addresses the protection of major couples, the Court clarified that the procedure applies to anyone facing extra-legal threats. This broad applicability underscores the judgment’s significance in reinforcing the Rule of Law and protecting individual autonomy against patriarchal and regressive societal norms.
Response from the Bar
Members of the Bar highlighted existing gaps in the current mechanisms, noting that couples often hesitate to approach police due to fears of harassment or collusion with their families. This hesitation is more pronounced in cases involving inter-faith couples. The Court’s SOP aims to address these concerns by instituting a transparent and accountable process for protection.
Conclusion
The Rajasthan High Court's judgment is a significant step toward safeguarding the constitutional rights of individuals choosing their partners. By establishing a detailed SOP and emphasizing the role of police in protecting these rights, the Court has reinforced the principles of personal liberty and equality. This judgment not only addresses immediate concerns but also sets a precedent for other states to follow, ensuring that constitutional guarantees are upheld, and individuals are protected from extra-legal threats.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.