The Madhya Pradesh High Court has declined to provide round-the-clock police protection to an interfaith couple, observing that continuous personal security cannot be granted solely on the basis of general fears or suspicious incidents.
The observation came while the court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Ratlam-based couple on May 14.
In their plea, the couple referred to incidents such as an unidentified person allegedly trying to stop their car and a suspicious vehicle repeatedly seen near their residence. Citing safety concerns, they sought 24-hour police protection along with enhanced security during the night.
Justice Jai Kumar Pillai of the HC's Indore bench said, "Every writ petition seeking such extraordinary protection must be substantiated by clear proof of threat, rather than general apprehensions or isolated incidents of suspicious vehicles, which primarily warrant regular police patrolling and investigation rather than personal armed guards."
As per the petition, the couple married in 2019 at an Arya Samaj temple in Delhi according to Hindu customs. The woman practised Islam before marriage and converted to Hinduism of her own free will.
Soon after the woman informed her parents about the marriage and conversion, the couple began receiving serious threats to their lives and safety from her family and other individuals.
When the threats continued, the woman approached the high court in 2022.
The court had directed the Ratlam Superintendent of Police to consider the couple's application in accordance with the law, after which they were provided security.
In the current writ petition, the petitioners told the HC that on April 13, without giving any administrative reason, the armed guard deployed for their security was removed and replaced by a Home Guard jawan who neither had a gun nor a mobile phone.
During the hearing in the high court, the state government strongly objected to the couple's petition and the reliefs sought in it.
After hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the record, the HC said, "While the constitutional right to life under Article 21 is paramount, the issuance of a continuous writ of mandamus for the deployment of specific security details requires strict scrutiny."
The bench also clarified that it had merely directed the Ratlam Superintendent of Police in 2022 to consider the petitioners' application legally, and this cannot be construed as a "judicial mandate" to provide permanent 24-hour security to the couple.
Dismissing the couple's writ petition, the HC said, "This court finds that the specific reliefs prayed for by the petitioners regarding the micromanagement of their security detail cannot be granted under the writ jurisdiction."
"Nonetheless, it remains the absolute statutory and constitutional duty of the police administration to maintain law and order. The authorities are obliged to take active, prompt, and appropriate action whenever a complaint of such nature is received," it stated.
The local police authorities are expected to look into the gravity of the case and strictly adhere to the remedial and preventive guidelines formulated by the Supreme Court, the HC said, referring to two apex court cases.
(With inputs from PTI)
