Making it clear that the subjective views of “mute” police officers on live-in relationships were eclipsing their sense of duty to protect couples from potential harm, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued five commandments for them to follow in the State of Haryana, Punjab and UT Chandigarh. The guidelines include the need for striking a balance between the legality of a relationship and the fundamental rights of the couples.
Justice Arun Monga said it was considered desirable to frame basic guidelines to sensitise the police who remained mute after receiving representations from fearful couples. It appeared that their subjective view of moral and ethical considerations of a live-in relationship prevailed over the duty to protect citizens’ life, leading to inaction. That was, in turn, unnecessarily driving the affected persons to the court for seeking relief.
The guidelines came after Justice Monga took note of the fact that the court was inundated with pleas by couples for protecting their lives following police inaction. The Bench asserted that the key issue was not the legality of a relationship, for which they might be liable for civil and criminal consequences, in accordance with law. The matter requiring consideration was whether they were entitled to protection of fundamental right under Article 21 and whether their right to live was required to be upheld, irrespective of their self-proclaimed live-in relationship, which in some cases prima facie appeared to be adulterous.
Referring to a Nuh couple’s plea, Justice Monga asserted they feared for their safety, not from society or the State, but the girl’s family. In his order, he observed that death was not the penalty for such defiance, and that too at the hands of the family. Constitutional fundamental right under Article 21 stood on a much higher pedestal.
“A balance has to be struck between ethical and legal questions about personal choices, fundamental rights, familial pressures and the role of the State. Life and individual rights in cases of live-in relationships, in deserving cases, must be protected from potential harm threatened by the family,” he asserted.
(Courtesy:- The Tribune, 15 October 2023)
No comments:
Post a Comment