The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted protection to the petitioner and his family who had been allegedly receiving threats from Kirron Kher, Member of Parliament from the Bharatiya Janata Party and held that if it does not give the petitioners protection for the time being, that might amount to not exercising the constitutional jurisdiction and thus in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, it shall be appropriate that the concerned Superintendent of Police and the concerned SHO provide appropriate protection to the petitioner.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed the present petition invoking the fundamental right of life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, seeking protection for his family after fearing his family’s life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner and his family are apprehending threats to their life and liberty at the hands of private respondents and further mentioned detailed reasons for financial issues between him and the private respondents, which might be the reason for such apprehension. It was further submitted that Article 21 of the Constitution of India is supreme and there is no necessity for the petitioner to first make a call on the Helpline number and given the profile of respondent no.2, they have straightaway come to this Court, it thus cannot be a ground to refuse protection to their life and liberty.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that no complaint has been received in any Police Station of Chandigarh at the behest of the petitioner or his wife or minor daughters and further t in case of any such threat, there is Helpline No. to report such matters and even as per his instructions, neither the petitioner nor any of his family members has called on said Helpline number. Further, it was submitted that since the allegations pertain within a building premises, as in the absence of any complaint, it would be inappropriate for the police to enter somebody’s home and therefore, they do not have any instructions regarding the allegations.
Observations of the court:
The court stated that if it does not give the petitioners the protection for the time being, that might amount to not exercising the constitutional jurisdiction and thus in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, it shall be appropriate that the concerned Superintendent of Police and the concerned SHO provide appropriate protection to the petitioner for one week. The court directed respondent 1 to ensure the protection of the petitioner and his family and directed the concerned Superintendent of Police/SHO to provide them protection for a period of one week.
The court further stated that the protection is subject to the stringent condition that from the time such protection is given, the petitioner and his wife shall not go outside the boundaries of the place of residence, except for medical necessities, to buy household necessities, and for bereavements in the families of the close relatives or close friends and this saves the petitioner and his wife from apprehended risk and ensures that the protection is not flaunted or misutilized.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and granted protection to the petitioner and his family.
Case Title: Chaittnya Aggarwal vs State of UT Chandigarh & others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara
Case No.: CRWP-11918-2023 (O&M)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu and Ms. Tejaswini
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Manish Bansal, Mr. Saksham Parmar and Mr. Ankush Singla
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source : https://images.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/import/sites/dh/files/articleimages/2023/03/16/kirronkherpti-1200808-1678986836.jpg?w=1200&h=675&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max&enlarge=true
