Time To Shift From Orthodox Society With Strong Strings Of Morality & Religion To One That Values Individual Life: P&H HC Grants Protection To Live-In Couple

"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 Punjab and Haryana High Court observed recently while hearing a protection plea filed by a live-in couple. The court also remarked that the times are changing fast, even in those lands that were left behind and stuck with the old ethos and conservative social milieu. We are governed by the rule of law and follow the Constitutional dharma, added the court. Essentially, the petitioners who claim to be in a live-in relationship, fearing for their lives and liberty at the hands of the private respondents, despite the male being previously married against the wishes of the private respondents, and such marriage in subsistence, had approached the court seeking direction to state for their protection, by invoking their fundamental rights of life guaranteed under Article 21. Justice Anoop Chitkara, while allowing the petition with 'stringent conditions' observed, "The times are changing fast, even in those lands that were left behind and stuck with the old ethos and conservative social milieu. We are governed by the rule of law and follow the Constitutional dharma. 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. 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." The court observed that the protection is subject to the stringent condition that from the time such protection is given, the petitioners shall not go outside the boundaries of the place of their residence, except for medical necessities, to buy household necessities, and for bereavements in the families of the persons who are close to them. The court noted that this restriction saves the petitioners from apprehended risk and ensures that the protection is not "flaunted". The court said, "Thus, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, it shall be appropriate that the concerned Superintendent of Police, SHO, or any officer to whom such powers have been delegated or have been authorized in this regard, provide appropriate protection to the petitioners for one week from today. However, if the petitioners no longer require the protection, then at their request it may be discontinued even before the expiry of one week. After that, the concerned officers shall extend the protection on day-to-day analysis of the ground realities or upon the oral or written request of the petitioners." The court stated that Article 21 has its origin in nothing less than the Magna Carta, (the 39th Article) of 1215 vintage which King John of England was forced to sign by his Barons. The court added that it is a little known fact that this original charter of liberty was faulted at the very start and did not get off the ground because of a Papal Bull issued by Pope Innocent the third declaring this charter to be void. Strangely, like Magna Carta, Art. 21 did not get off the ground for 28 years after which, unshackled, it has become the single most important fundamental right under the Constitution of India, being described as one of a holy trinity consisting of a 'golden triangle', added the court. Placing reliance on the Apex Court's decision in Mohd Arif @ Ashfaq v. Registrar [(2014) 9 SCC 737], the court noted that the fundamental right to life, which, among all fundamental rights, is the most precious to all human beings. It was opined by the court that if the allegations of apprehension of threat to their lives turn out to be true, it might lead to an irreversible loss. The court refused to adjudicate on the validity of petitioners' relationship but adhered to its fundamental duty of guarding their lives. The court clarified that there is no adjudication on merits and that this order is not a blanket bail in any FIR. It was further clarified by the court that this order shall not come in the way if the interrogation of the petitioners is required in any cognizable case. The court also granted liberty to the petitioner(s) to approach this Court again in case of any fresh threat perception. Moreover, the court said that neither the response of official respondents nor the issuance of notices to the private respondents is required, given the nature of the order.. The court stated that there would be no need for a certified copy of this order, and any Advocate for the Petitioner and State can download this order and other relevant particulars from the court's official web page and attest it ...

Time To Shift From Orthodox Society With Strong Strings Of Morality & Religion To One That Values Individual Life: P&H HC Grants Protection To Live-In Couple

ANIRUDH VIJAY

Tags