Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mamta Kumari vs State on 6 January, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1512/2020
1. Mamta Kumari W/o Bhalla Ram D/o Lakhma Ram, Aged
About 22 Years, B/c Rajpurohit, R/o Karlu, Shivgarh,
Bhinmal, District Jalore.
2. Bhalla Ram S/o Vela Ram, Aged About 33 Years, B/c
Rajpurohit, R/o Sariyana Fagotra, District Jalore.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State, Through Chief Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Superintendent Of Police, Jalore.
3. The Police Station Ramsin, District Jalore.
4. Lakhma Ram S/o Janu Ji, B/c Rajpurohit, R/o Karlu,
Shivgarh, Bhinmal, District Jalore.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None Present
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
06/01/2023
1. The petitioners have preferred this criminal writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of
necessary directions to the official respondents to provide
adequate security and protection to the petitioners on the ground
that they are facing grave threat of life and liberty at the hands of
private respondent.
2. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for right to life
and personal liberty under the ambit of fundamental rights and
any threat to the same amounts to violation of the same.
3. While keeping in mind a catena of precedent laws laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court has made the following
observations in its judgment rendered in the case of Leela & Anr.
(Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 09:35:06 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-1512/2020]
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No. 5045/2021, decided on 15.09.2021):-
"30. It is sufficiently clear to this Court that the
Hon'ble Apex Court's standpoint is that there exists a
duty of the State to protect and safeguard all
fundamental rights, unless taken away by due process
of law. Even if any illegality or wrongfulness has been
committed, the duty to punish vests solely with the
State, that too in attune with due process of law. In no
circumstance can the State bypass due process, permit
or condone any acts of moral policing or mob
mentality. When the Right to life and liberty is even
guaranteed to convicted criminals of serious offences,
there can be no reasonable nexus to not grant the
same protection to those in an "legal/illegal
relationships".
31. Had there been a question before this Court with
regards the morality/ legality of live- in relationships
and matters connected thereto, then perhaps the
answer would have required more deliberation along
those lines. However, in the context of the limited
question this Court is posed with pertaining to the
application of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
it is clear that the right to claim protection under this
Article is a constitutional mandate upon the State and
can be availed by all persons alike. There arises no
question of this right to be waived off even if the
person seeking protection is guilty of an immoral,
unlawful or illegal act, as per the precedent law cited of
the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, in this case, this
Court does not wish to delve into the sanctity of
relationships.
32. This Court finds itself firmly tied down to the
principle of individual autonomy, which cannot be
hampered by societal expectations in a vibrant
democracy. The State's respect for the individual
independent choices has to be held high.
(Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 09:35:06 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-1512/2020]
33. This Court fully values the principle that at all
junctures constitutional morality has to have an
overriding impact upon societal morality.
This Court cannot sit back and watch the transgression
or dereliction in the sphere of fundamental rights,
which are basic human rights.
The public morality cannot be allowed to overshadow
the constitutional morality, particularly when the legal
tenability of the right to protection is paramount.
34. This Court is duty bound to act as a protector
of the rights of the individuals, which are under
siege with the clear intention of obstructing the
vision of Constitution."
4. This Court thus disposes of the present petition with the
direction to the petitioners to appear before the Station House
Officer of Police Station Ramsin, District Jalore alongwith
appropriate representation regarding their grievance. The Station
House Officer of Police Station Ramsin, District Jalore shall in turn
hear the grievance of the petitioners, and after analyzing the
threat perceptions, if necessitated, may pass necessary orders to
provide adequate security and protection to the petitioners.
5. It is made clear that any observation in this order shall
not affect any criminal and civil proceedings initiated against the
petitioners.
6. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
30-nirmala/-
(Downloaded on 06/01/2023 at 09:35:06 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)