Gurugram: The Punjab and Haryana High Court pulled up the administrations of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh last week for failing to widely disseminate the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) framed to deal with the protection pleas filed by runaway couples, amid the rising number of such cases.
In an order passed in Kamalpreet Kaur vs State of Haryana on 12 June, Justice Rohit Kapoor observed that the court continues to be flooded with writ petitions seeking protection of life and liberty, many of which could have been resolved administratively, if only the SOPs mandated under the judgment in Kajal vs State of Haryana had been properly implemented and publicised.
Justice Kapoor’s observations echoed the concerns previously raised by Justice Sandeep Moudgil, who, while passing the landmark order in the Kajal case on 14 June last year, had expressed alarm over the sheer volume of protection petitions landing before the high court—often as many as 80 to 90 every single day.
Most of these petitions, the court noted in the present case, were being filed immediately after couples submitted representations to the police, without giving the authorities even a day to act upon them.
Calling it a misuse of judicial time, Justice Moudgil, in the judgment in Kajal’s case, had stressed the need to evolve a structured and accountable mechanism for dealing with such representations at the district level. It was in this context that the SOPs were conceived.
Also Read: Why Allahabad HC fined UP Shia Central Waqf Board Rs 15,000 in case originating from a 1934 deed
SOPs mandated in 2024
Framed in consultation with the Advocate Generals of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh, these guidelines were meant to streamline how authorities respond to genuine apprehensions of threat faced by adult couples in live-in relationships or marriages performed against familial consent.
The SOPs provided for the appointment of nodal officers in every district, designated inquiry officers at police stations, time-bound disposal of representations, besides a two-tier redressal mechanism to ensure fairness and accountability.
Under this system, once a representation is made by a couple, the concerned police officer—not below the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector—is required to complete a preliminary inquiry within three days. If there appears to be a prima facie threat to the couple’s safety, immediate protection is to be provided, including safe house arrangements if needed.
The officer must then issue a speaking, reasoned order. A dissatisfied party can file an appeal within three days before an officer of Deputy Superintendent of Police rank, who is expected to dispose of the appeal with a detailed order within a week.
Districts were also directed to set up 24×7 helpdesks and maintain digital records of such cases, with quarterly monitoring to be undertaken at the Director General of Police level.
Justice Moudgil had observed in the Kajal case order that such a system, if implemented properly, could protect Article 21 rights (protection of life and personal liberty) without pushing every distressed couple into expensive and emotionally exhausting litigation.
He also made it clear that the purpose was not to dilute judicial remedies, but to strengthen the administrative mechanism that could act as the first point of resolution in such cases.
What the 12 June order said
However, a year later, the promise of this reform remains largely on paper, the high court has noted. Justice Kapoor pointed out in his 12 June judgment that the SOPs have not been widely circulated among police stations, district officials, or even the public, resulting in complete lack of awareness of the process among those meant to benefit from it.
The court remarked that a large number of couples continue to approach the High Court directly, filing writ petitions under Article 226 without waiting for any action from the concerned authorities.
In many cases, even the appeals mechanism provided under the SOP remains unused, further overburdening the judiciary with avoidable litigation. What makes the situation worse is that lawyers and police officers themselves seem unaware of the SOPs, defeating their very purpose, the court said.
The court has now made it mandatory for future writ petitions seeking protection to include a statement that a representation has already been filed before the authorities, and that no relief has been granted within the stipulated time.
All sessions judges in the three jurisdictions have been directed to ensure that litigants are first encouraged to seek remedy through the fixed mechanism.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
Also Read: What Madras HC said while upholding Tamil Nadu’s night ban on real money gaming