Couples marrying against parents’ wishes can’t claim police protection as right: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has hit headlines for the wrong reasons once again. After “mere grabbing of a girl’s breasts and pulling her ‘pyjama’ string did not amount to attempt to rape” and “complainant herself invited trouble" remarks, it has now said that couples who marry as per their own free will against the wishes of their parents can’t claim police protection as a matter of right, unless there’s a real threat to their life and liberty.

While deciding an application filed by a couple seeking protection earlier this week, Justice Saurabh Srivastava said, “There is no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them in the light of judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh vs State of UP and another, wherein it has been held that the courts are not meant to provide protection to such youths who have simply fled to marry according to their own wishes."

Justice Srivastava said, “There is not even an iota of evidence to evince that private respondents (relatives of either of the petitioners) are likely to cause physical or mental assault to them."

However, noting that the petitioners had already submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot district, the HC said, “In case the police find a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law."

In March this year, the Allahabad High Court had invited widespread criticism for its ruling that grabbing breasts and snapping pyjama string wasn’t enough to charge an accused with attempt to rape.

An outraged Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the order passed by Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra of the Allahabad High Court. Terming it as “totally insensitive” and “inhuman”, a Bench led by Justice BR Gavai on March 26 stayed the Allahabad High Court’s controversial remarks.

“We are at pains to state that some of the observations made in the impugned order depict a total lack of sensitivity on part of the author of the judgment. The perusal of the judgment would reveal that it was not as if the judgment was dictated at the spur of the moment in the court. The matter was reserved on November 13, 2024, and after almost a period of more than four months, the judgment was pronounced. It’s thus clear that the judge has authored the judgment after application of mind,” the Bench had said.

“In normal circumstances we are slow in granting stay at this stage. But since observations are totally unknown to cannons of law and depict a totally insensitive and inhuman approach, we are inclined to stay the observations,” it said.

On April 15, the top court again took strong exception to the Allahabad High Court’s “complainant herself invited trouble" remarks in a rape case and questioned the need for the high court to make such comments while deciding a bail application.

While granting bail to an accused in a rape case, Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh of the high court recently commented that the complainant “herself invited trouble" by agreeing to go to the house of the accused after getting drunk.

India