The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that the state’s duty to protect life and personal liberty under Article 21 extends to couples facing threats from family members over consensual marriages. In a decisive intervention, the Court directed police authorities to conduct a formal threat assessment rather than defer or dismiss petitions on the basis of unverified allegations about marital validity.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, a young couple - Manju Bala and Shayar Singh - assert that they solemnized their marriage on 20 January 2026 in Sriganganagar and are living together as husband and wife. The private respondents, comprising the petitioners’ relatives, allegedly oppose the union and have issued threats to their lives and personal liberty. The petitioners claim these threats stem from familial disapproval of their inter-familial marriage, a common trigger for honour-based violence in rural Rajasthan.
Procedural History
- The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking immediate protection from the State and police authorities.
- No FIR or criminal complaint had been registered prior to the petition.
- The State opposed the petition on grounds that the marriage’s validity was unproven and that the matter was a private family dispute.
- The Court declined to dismiss the petition on procedural or evidentiary grounds, emphasizing the urgency of protecting fundamental rights.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought immediate police protection, including deployment of security personnel and preventive measures against the private respondents, pending investigation into the threat perception.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 obligates the state to initiate protective measures when individuals reasonably apprehend threats from family members over consensual marriage, even before a formal complaint or FIR is filed.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Sanjiv Beniwal argued that the petitioners’ apprehension of harm was not speculative but grounded in credible threats from close relatives. He relied on Shakti Vahini v. Union of India to assert that the state has a positive obligation to prevent honour-based violence. He contended that requiring an FIR as a precondition would defeat the purpose of Article 21, especially when victims fear retaliation.
For the Respondent
Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, Additional Government Advocate, submitted that the Court could not intervene without verifying the legality of the marriage or the authenticity of the threat. He argued that the matter was civil in nature and that police protection should only follow a formal complaint under Section 154 CrPC.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the notion that protection must await criminal proceedings. It emphasized that Article 21 imposes a proactive duty on the state to safeguard life and liberty, not merely respond to violations after they occur. The Court distinguished this from ordinary civil disputes, noting that threats arising from societal norms like honour-based opposition carry an inherent risk of irreversible harm.
"No person can be deprived of his or her life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law and apprehension relating to life and personal liberty, if asserted, deserves to be examined by the competent authority."
The Court held that the police, as the primary custodians of public order, are duty-bound to assess threat perception objectively. It clarified that the validity of the marriage or the truth of the petitioners’ claims is irrelevant at this stage - what matters is the reasonableness of the apprehension. The Court further noted that requiring petitioners to file an FIR first would place them in a Catch-22: they cannot file without protection, yet protection is denied without an FIR.
The Court also explicitly declined to make any determination on the marriage’s validity, preserving the right of civil or criminal courts to adjudicate those issues independently.
The Verdict
The petitioners prevailed. The Court held that the state must proactively assess credible threats to life and liberty under Article 21, even in the absence of a formal complaint. It directed the Superintendent of Police to conduct a hearing and calibrate threat perception within ten days, with a view to providing necessary protection.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Protection Precedes Investigation
- Practitioners must now file writ petitions under Article 226 immediately upon credible threat reports, without waiting for FIR registration.
- Police cannot delay protection on grounds of unverified marital status or family disputes.
- Courts will treat apprehension of honour-based violence as a prima facie violation of Article 21.
Police Must Conduct Formal Threat Assessment
- Superintendents of Police are now legally obligated to hold hearings with both petitioners and alleged threat-makers.
- Threat assessment must be documented and based on objective indicators - not familial status or social stigma.
- Failure to act may render the state liable for negligence under Article 21 jurisprudence.
Marriage Validity Is Irrelevant to Protection
- Courts will not require proof of marriage, age, or consent before granting protective relief.
- The focus remains solely on the reasonableness of the fear of harm.
- This shields vulnerable couples from being weaponized against by families using legal technicalities to delay protection.
