No Automatic Right to Police Protection for Choice Marriages | Absence of Threat Perception Bars Mandamus : Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has clarified that couples who marry by choice are not entitled to police protection as a matter of right, absent concrete evidence of a real threat to their life or liberty. While acknowledging that courts can intervene in deserving cases, the judgment underscores that couples must face societal challenges independently, relying on legal remedies only when actual harm is imminent.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioners, Smt Archana Kumari and her spouse, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to restrain the respondents, including the State of Uttar Pradesh and private respondents (relatives of either petitioner), from interfering in their marital life. The petitioners alleged potential threats but provided no substantive evidence of actual harm or imminent danger.

Key Facts

• The petitioners married of their own volition, without parental consent
• No First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against any private respondent for harassment, assault, or illegal conduct
• No representation or complaint was made to police authorities alleging specific threats or violence
• The petitioners sought police protection as a preventive measure, citing societal disapproval

Procedural History

• Writ Petition (C No. 22857 of 2026) filed before the Allahabad High Court
• Hearing Date: Not specified, but judgment delivered on 12 June 2026
• No prior litigation or police complaints mentioned in the pleadings

Relief Sought

The petitioners sought:

• A direction to the respondents to refrain from interfering in their marital life
• Police protection to ensure their safety and liberty

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether couples who marry by choice, without evidence of actual threat or harm, are entitled to police protection as a matter of right under Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and personal liberty).

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioners

The petitioners relied on the general principle of personal liberty under Article 21, arguing that societal disapproval and potential familial opposition warranted judicial intervention. They contended that the state has a duty to protect citizens from perceived threats, even in the absence of an FIR or formal complaint.

For the Respondents

The State-respondents argued that:

• No prima facie evidence of threat or harm was presented
• Police protection cannot be granted as a matter of course without justification
• The petitioners had not exhausted remedies under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which mandates police action on receipt of information about cognizable offences
• The judgment in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 2522) precludes courts from providing blanket protection to couples marrying against societal norms

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the scope of Article 21 and the principles laid down in Lata Singh, holding that:

1. No Automatic Right to Protection: Police protection is not a right but a discretionary remedy granted only when there is real threat perception. The petitioners failed to demonstrate any concrete evidence of danger to their life or liberty.

   "The courts are not meant to provide protection to such youths, who have simply fled to marry according to their own wishes."

2. Burden of Proof: The onus lies on the petitioners to establish a genuine threat to their safety. Mere apprehension of harm, without supporting evidence, is insufficient to invoke judicial intervention.

3. Role of Police and Courts: While the police and courts are duty-bound to protect citizens from actual harm, they cannot be compelled to provide security based on speculative fears. The petitioners were advised to approach the police with specific complaints if harassed.

4. Societal Responsibility: The Court emphasized that couples marrying by choice must face societal challenges independently, relying on legal remedies only when actual harm occurs.

   "They have to learn to support each other and face the society."

5. Procedural Compliance: The Court noted that the petitioners had not lodged an FIR or invoked Section 175(3) of BNSS, which obligates police to act on information of cognizable offences. This procedural lapse weakened their claim for protection.

The Verdict

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that:

• No case was made out for granting police protection in the absence of real threat perception
• The petitioners had failed to provide even an iota of evidence of harm or harassment by private respondents
• The judgment in Lata Singh precludes courts from providing blanket protection to couples marrying by choice
• The petition was disposed of without any relief, leaving the petitioners to seek remedies under BNSS if actual harm occurs

What This Means For Similar Cases

Protection Is Not a Matter of Right

• Courts will not grant police protection based on apprehensions or societal disapproval alone
• Petitioners must provide concrete evidence of threats, harassment, or violence to justify judicial intervention
• The burden of proof lies on the couple to establish a real and imminent danger to their life or liberty

Exhaust Remedies Before Approaching Courts

• Couples seeking protection must first lodge complaints with police under Section 175(3) of BNSS or file an FIR for cognizable offences
• Courts will not entertain writ petitions unless statutory remedies are exhausted
• Failure to follow procedural requirements may result in outright dismissal of the petition

Societal Challenges Must Be Faced Independently

• The judgment reinforces that couples marrying by choice cannot rely on courts to shield them from societal opposition
• Legal remedies are available only for actual harm, not for perceived or potential threats
• The Court’s observations underscore the limitations of judicial intervention in personal matters absent legal violations