Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jayanti Kachhawaha vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 December, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 601/2022
1. Jayanti Kachhawaha D/o Jay Singh Kachhawaha, W/o
Jitendra Gehlot, Aged About 22 Years, 45, Dilip Nagar, Lal
Sagar, Jodhpur.
2. Jitendra Gehlot S/o Ranjeet Singh, Aged About 31 Years,
507, Phoolbabh, Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Dept. Of
Home Affairs, Govt. Of Raj. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Of Police, Jodhpur.
3. The S.h.o., P.s. Mandore, Jodhpur.
4. Jay Singh Kachchawaha S/o Shankar Lal, 45, Dilip Nagar,
Lal Sagar, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Laxman Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
20/12/2022
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 respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 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. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
(Downloaded on 20/12/2022 at 11:55:05 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLW-601/2022]
4. 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.
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
(Downloaded on 20/12/2022 at 11:55:05 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLW-601/2022]
hampered by societal expectations in a vibrant
democracy. The State's respect for the individual
independent choices has to be held high.
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."
5. This Court thus disposes of the present petition with the
direction to the petitioners to appear before the Station House
Officer, Police Station, Mandore, Jodhpur alongwith appropriate
representation regarding their grievance. The Station House
Officer, Police Station, Mandore, Jodhpur 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.
6. It is made clear that any observation in this order shall not
affect any criminal and civil proceedings initiated against the
petitioners.
7. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
283-Sanjay/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
