Topic
Police duty in Indian law encompasses the obligation of law enforcement to proactively protect citizens' fundamental rights, including life, liberty, and personal security, especially in cases of domestic violence, honour threats, or obstruction of lawful activities.
Madhya Pradesh High Court directs police to proactively protect interfaith couples from harassment, reaffirming the constitutional right to marry under Article 21. The ruling mandates immediate action against threats or violence, aligning with the Supreme Court's Lata Singh judgment.
Bombay High Court rules that compensation and disciplinary action against police for delayed FIR registration under Section 154 CrPC cannot be granted via writ when cross-complaints exist and the trial is premature. The judgment underscores that judicial relief for police inaction is unsustainable without final adjudication of competing complaints.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that police cannot merely register complaints against interference with legally licensed aquaculture - they are constitutionally obligated to provide proactive security to safeguard livelihoods protected under Article 19(1)(g) and the right to life under Article 21. This sets a binding precedent for state authorities to treat lawful fishing and aquaculture as essential economic activity warranting preventive law enforcement.
Rajasthan High Court directs police to evaluate threat perceptions and provide protection to adult couples in inter-faith or inter-caste marriages, reinforcing that fundamental rights under Article 21 cannot be compromised. The ruling mandates law enforcement to prevent vigilante actions and ensure safety without adjudicating marital validity.
Madhya Pradesh High Court mandates that police must conclude preliminary inquiry and decide on FIR registration within 90 days of receiving a complaint for cognizable offences under Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Failure to act within the stipulated period empowers complainants to seek judicial intervention under Article 226, reinforcing accountability in criminal investigations.
The Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 prevails over societal norms, directing police to evaluate threats faced by live-in couples from family members. The ruling mandates state protection for consenting adults, regardless of the relationship's legal status, reinforcing constitutional safeguards against extra-legal coercion.
Allahabad HC reaffirms that petitioners must first exhaust remedies under Sections 156(3) or 200 CrPC before approaching the High Court for mandamus to compel FIR registration, unless exceptional circumstances exist. The ruling reinforces the statutory duty of police to register FIRs for cognizable offences but mandates prior judicial remedies as a precondition for writ relief.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that state police must independently evaluate threat claims by interfaith couples under Article 21, regardless of whether an FIR has been filed. This sets a critical precedent for preventive state protection in cases of familial opposition, affirming that the right to life and liberty includes proactive safeguarding, not just reactive intervention.
MP High Court mandates police action on complaints of criminal trespass by borrowers post-SARFAESI Act possession transfer. The ruling reinforces secured creditors' rights, ensuring law enforcement cannot evade duty under the guise of being functus officio after Section 14 orders.
Punjab & Haryana HC directs police to act on threat reports from adult couples in love marriages, affirming their right to life and liberty under Article 21, irrespective of marriage validity. The ruling clarifies that police protection does not grant immunity from criminal liability but mandates state intervention to prevent harm.
Madras High Court reinforces that licensed quarry operators with statutory clearances hold a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to operate without unlawful obstruction. The Court directed police to act on protection requests within a reasonable time, emphasizing that failure to do so violates constitutional guarantees and enables lawful business disruptions.
Madras High Court dismisses a writ petition after police confirm restoration of order at a 100 MW solar project, reinforcing that state authorities must proactively safeguard lawful infrastructure from unlawful disruptions. The ruling clarifies that police protection is not merely reactive but a mandatory duty under constitutional writ jurisdiction.
The Telangana High Court has held that police inaction in registering an FIR or issuing a Non-Traceable Certificate for lost registered documents violates constitutional duty and principles of natural justice. The ruling mandates police to act on complaints regarding missing legal documents, ensuring legal recourse for affected parties under Article 226.
Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that police must act on civil court orders protecting possession; failure to do so violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that police must examine exculpatory evidence like CCTV footage in FIRs; failure to do so violates fair investigation under Article 21.