Interfaith Couples Must Show Clear Proof Of Threat To Seek Continuous Police Protection, General Apprehensions Not Enough: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed an inter-faith couple's petition seeking round-the-clock (24-hour) police protection including specialized security during night hours, observing that every plea for continuous police protection must demonstrate clear proof of threat rather than general apprehensions or isolated incidents. The petitioners had specifically sought quashing or...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed an inter-faith couple's petition seeking round-the-clock (24-hour) police protection including specialized security during night hours, observing that every plea for continuous police protection must demonstrate clear proof of threat rather than general apprehensions or isolated incidents.
The petitioners had specifically sought quashing or modification of the respondents' action dated 13.04.2026, whereby the armed gunman previously deputed for their security was removed and replaced by an unarmed Home Guard personnel. The petitioners sought directions to the authorities to conduct a fair and proper investigation into the continuous threats and suspicious activities reported by them and the police personnel stationed at their residence.
The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed;
"This Court observes with concern the filing of a bundle of petitions where, in almost every inter-caste or inter-religion marriage, the couple registers a writ petition seeking continuous police protection without any clear, substantive, and unimpeachable evidence of an ongoing, imminent threat. While the Constitutional Right to life under Article 21 is paramount, the issuance of a continuous writ of mandamus for the deployment of specific security details requires strict scrutiny. Every writ petition seeking such extraordinary protection must be substantiated by clear proof of threat, rather than general apprehensions or isolated incidents of suspicious vehicles, which primarily warrant regular police patrolling and investigation rather than personal armed guards".
Therefore, the court held that, merely in the name of protection, the court cannot issue blanket orders that dictate the precise modalities of security deployment. The court emphasized;
"This Court cannot, in the name of protection, assume the role of the security establishment and issue blanket orders to dictate the precise modalities of security deployment. Specifically, this Court cannot order reliefs like directing the Respondents "to provide adequate and effective police protection to the Petitioners and their family members, including round-the-clock (24 hours) security protection, at their residence or wherever they are" or issuing a writ "directing the Respondents to Re-allot Gunman/enhance the existing police protection by deployment of sufficient police personnel, including protection during night hours".
The petitioners, who solemnised their marriage in 2019 per Hindu Rites, approached the court seeking the grant of adequate, effective and round-the-clock police protection, including specialised security during night hours. The petitioners further sought to quash the order of April 13, 2026, wherein the armed gunman outside their house was replaced by an unarmed Home Guard Personnel.
The petitioner's claimed that the the wife, was originally a Muslim but voluntarily converted to Hindu religion out of her free will. The dispute arose when the wife informed her parents of their marriage and religious conversion, after which they started receiving severe threats to their lives and safety from their family members.
The threat perception was acknowledged in the communication of September 28, 2021, by the investigating officer, who noted that the husband faced threats from individuals from another religion due to the interfaith marriage.
The petitioners shifted their residence to Ratlam, but the threats persisted. The court, therefore, via an order of September 2022, directed the Superintendent of Police to consider their representation and pass necessary orders for police protection, which was duly granted.
The counsel for the petitioners, however, asserted that the threats have escalated between 2024-26, including an incident in 2024 when an unknown person allegedly attempted to stop the couple's car and was also scoping their residence. The counsel further argued that in October 2025, a constable reported that unknown persons were roaming on a motorcycle without a number plate and were conducting surveillance of the house.
The petition stated that the immediate cause of action arose in April 2026, when the respondents, without assigning any reasons, replaced the armed gunman with Home Guard Personnel, who neither own a firearm nor a cellular phone to alert authorities in case of emergencies.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents failed to provide round-the-clock police protection and thus violated Article 21 of the Constitution. The counsel further argued that the State is duty-bound to protect its citizens and that the current security arrangement at the couple's residence is grossly insufficient.
The court noted that in almost every case of intercaste or interfaith marriage, the couple registered a petition seeking continuous police protection without substantive and unimpeachable evidence of ongoing and imminent threat. The bench emphasized that while Article 21 is of paramount importance in ensuring the constitutional right to life, issuance of directions for deployment of specific details requires strict scrutiny.
The bench noted that in every such petition seeking extraordinary protection, the couple must demonstrate the same by clear proof of threat rather than general apprehensions or isolated incidents of suspicious vehicles.
On an earlier order passed by the high court in the petitioners' previous plea, the court said that it had merely directed the Superintendent of Police, Ratlam, to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with the law, within seven days.
The court said, "A plain reading of the said order makes it abundantly clear that the directive was strictly confined to the disposal of the representation. It did not, by any stretch of imagination, constitute a judicial mandate or order directing the police authorities to provide continuous, round-the-clock security in perpetuity. The Petitioners, therefore, cannot rely on the earlier order to claim a vested, ongoing right to permanent armed protection".
However, the court also acknowledged the statutory and constitutional duty of police administration to maintain law and order and is obligated to take active, prompt, and appropriate action whenever a complaint of such nature is received.
Therefore, in view of the above, the court dismissed the petition, noting that the specific reliefs prayer regarding micromanaging of security detail cannot be granted.
Case Title: X v State of Madhya Pradesh,
W.P. No. 14252/2026
For Petitioner: Advocate Aayush Pandey
For State: Government Advocate Amit Bhatia