The petitioners filed for a mandamus i.e., a judicial writ issued as a command to an inferior court or ordering a person to perform a public or statutory duty, here ordering the police to protect the life of the petitioners under article 21 of the Indian constitution which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedures established by law. This judgment or final order was given in the high court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on the 9/07/2021 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri in the case of Bharti and another v/s state of Haryana and others CRWP-6317-2021, the court proceedings were held in on a virtual platform due to covid -19.
The following are the facts of the case, a petition has been filed under article 226/227 of the constitution of India i.e. it empowers the high courts to issue, to any person or authority, directions, orders, or writs, including writs in the nature of mandamus it also “determines that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals.” This prayer was made in the nature of mandamus, which would direct respondents (state of Haryana) to protect the life and liberty and dignity of the petitioners from private respondents, according to the counsel of the petitioners, petitioner no.1 who is a girl of 18 years and marriageable age and petitioner no.2 who is a boy of 20 years, therefore the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 wanted to marry each other, however, the marriage was not possible because the boy (petitionerno.2) was not yet 21 which is the minimum age for getting married in India legally.
According to the Indian law “The current minimum age of marriage is 21 and 18 for men and women, respectively in India, approved by the amendment of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 in 1978. The same is recommended by the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006”. They however intend to get married in the future, under annexure there are reports submitted by the petitioner to the high court that they approached the superintendent of police in the district of Kurukshetra in Haryana but however the police have taken no action to protect the life and dignity of the petitioner even though they were approached by the petitioners.
According to the counsel of the petitioner who is Mr. Anoop Verma representing as the advocate for the petitioners, the counsel claimed that the petitioners are under immense threat to life and this threat is to extent that they may even be killed for the sake of the family’s prestige, this threat is from the private respondents, this is the reason on why the petitioners have sought for protection from this court, according to the counsel for the state, Mr. Deepak Manchanda, represented Haryana and he has accepted the noticed and made no objection for the same.
The court held that the scope of the present petition is to grant protection of life to the petitioners the court directed in the form of mandamus to ask the state of Haryana to look into the annexure ( police protection ) which have been previously filed by petitioners and under the law to take further action for the purpose of protection of life and liberty and dignity of the petitioners which is also mentioned under article 21 of the constitution of India, the court concluded that “It is made clear that the present directions are pertaining only to ensuring the protection of the life of the petitioners warranted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and does not in any way preclude the police to take any other action against the petitioners if it is so warranted and which is in accordance with the law. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.”
