AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
MINDERJEET YADAV, J. (ORAL)
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents No.2 and 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondents No. 4 and 5 and to take action on their representation dated 30.10.2026 (Annexure P-4).
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners are major and have solemnized marriage on 29.10.2026 of their own free will. It is submitted that the marriage being inter-caste is not acceptable to respondents No.4 and 5, who have allegedly extended threats to the petitioners. Copies of the Adhar Cards of the petitioners (Annexures P-1 and P-2) and a marriage certificate Annexure P-3 have been placed on record. It is further submitted that though a representation dated 30.10.2026 was submitted to respondent No.2, no effective action has been taken their own.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents No.1-3-State.
The question presently arising is not whether the marriage claimed by the petitioners is valid, but whether their apprehension regarding safety deserves consideration by the competent authority. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and anolther (2006) 5 SCC 475, held that threats or harassment on account of inter caste marriage are impermissible. It was further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. and others 2018 16 SCC 368 that the choice of a partner lies within the sphere of individual autonomy protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The duty of the State against violence or intimidation arising from such choices was also emphasised in the case of Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India and others (2018) 7 SCC 192.
Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Yashpal and another vs. State of Haryana and others, CRWP-4660-2021, decided on 09.09.2024, wherein the obligation to safeguard life and liberty was considered independently of questions concerning the nature or validity of a relationship. Thus, while the allegations of threats are yet to be examined, the representation needs to be decided and cannot be left unattended merely because the family does not approve of the petitioners’ stated relationship.
Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of at this stage with a direction to respondent No. 2-Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar, Mohali to decide the aforesaid representation dated 30.10.2026 (Annexure P-4) of the petitioners within a period of 15 days in accordance with law. Needless to say, if any threat is found to the petitioners, the official respondents would provide them adequate security in order to protect their life and liberty.
It is clarified that this order neither confers any declaration regarding the petitioners matrimonial status nor does it determine the rights or liabilities of the private respondents. It shall also not preclude any lawful proceedings or action, if otherwise warranted.
The present petition stands disposed of in the abovesaid terms.