It would be extremely vital to pay attention that the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court while ruling on a very significant legal point pertaining to police protection of couples facing serious threats in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Suman Meena vs State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 792/2024 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:RJ-JP:32547 that was reserved on 11.7.2024 and then finally pronounced on 2.8.2024 has been most unequivocal in underscoring that police authorities have a constitutional responsibility to provide enhanced protection to the couples who are facing threats or harassment from social actors or groups enforcing dominant social norms.

We must certainly note here that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr Justice Sameer Jain was most emphatic in observing sternly that there must exist an appropriate institutional mechanism for such couples to ensure that police officers are held accountable for their failure to protect them. We thus see that the Bench issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to ensure that couples who are married or are simply in a close relationship are given adequate police protection.

Most significantly, before stating anything else, we must pay heed to what the Single Judge Jaipur Bench held in para 30.7 of this notable judgment what constitutes the cornerstone wherein it is postulated that:

The following flowchart represents the mechanism delineated under paragraphs 30.1 to 30.6 of this judgment:

• Step 1: The applicant(s) apprehend(s) extra-legal threats to their lives and liberty on the part of other social actors/groups.
• Step 2: The applicant(s) may file a representation before a designated Nodal Officer, who may or may not have territorial jurisdiction over the matter. [In case the Nodal Officer before whom the representation is filed does not have territorial jurisdiction over the matter, the respective Nodal Officer shall undertake the steps specified in paragraph 30.2 of this judgment.]
• Step 3: The respective Nodal Officer having territorial jurisdiction over the matter shall implement measures to ensure interim protection for the applicant(s), if required, on an immediate basis.
• Step 4: The respective Nodal Officer having territorial jurisdiction over the matter shall consider the representation, afford an opportunity of appearance and hearing to the applicant(s) in person or through an advocate, and decide on the representation in accordance with law within the upper limit of 7 days of the date of receiving the representation.
• Step 5: If aggrieved by the decision(s)/inaction of the respective Nodal Officer(s) as specified in steps 2 to 4, the applicant(s) may file a representation before the respective Superintendent of Police.
• Step 6: The respective Superintendent of Police shall consider and decide on the representation in accordance with law within the upper limit of 3 days of the date of receiving the representation.
• Step 7: If aggrieved of the decision/inaction of the respective Superintendent of Police, the applicant(s) may file a complaint before the appropriate level of the 'Police Complaints Authority'.
• Step 8: Where (and only where) the applicant(s) is/are aggrieved of the decision of the respective Police Complaints Authority, or the proceedings before the respective Police Complaints Authority are not concluded within a reasonable period of time, the applicant(s) may invoke this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for compelling reasons and in accordance with law.

It must be certainly clarified here that these directions shall extend to but shall not be limited to the persons who may face such threats on account of their choice of partner/spouse.

Equally significant is what is then propounded in para 30.8 stating that:
The State Government is directed to ensure that the existing procedures and mechanisms for the consideration and disposal of representations for enhanced police protection are brought in compliance with the directions stipulated in paragraphs 30.1 to 30.5.1 as well as 30.7 of this judgment, through the promulgation of the appropriate 'Standard Operating Procedure' (SoP). This Court clarifies that the aforementioned SoP shall specify, inter alia, the details of the online mechanism as specified in paragraph 30.1 of this judgment, as well as certain Whatsapp/ helpline numbers and a designated email ID where the respective persons who apprehend a threat to their safety may register their grievances.

The State Government shall ensure that the aforementioned online mechanism and Whatsapp/helpline numbers and email ID are effective and functional at all times, and are accessible to the respective persons who apprehend a threat to their safety. Further, the aforementioned SoP shall specify the contact numbers and details of the designated Nodal Officers. The State Government shall ensure that the aforementioned SoP is accessible to the police officers and visitors at every police station, and is publicised widely to the extent possible through publication in newspapers, on the appropriate social media handles etc.

At the very outset, this commendable, courageous, current and convincing judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr Justice Sameer Jain in its prefatory remarks first and foremost puts forth in para 1 that:
The instant Writ Petition involves a crucial issue regarding the constitutional and statutory obligations of the State, and particularly the police authorities, qua safeguarding the life and liberty of persons who face threats of extra-legal harassment and/or violence at the hands of other social actors or groups.

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that:
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners no. 1 and 2 are a major couple who solemnized their marriage with mutual consent on 01.03.2024. It is submitted that the petitioners apprehend a threat to their safety from respondents no. 6 to 10, who are the family members of petitioner no. 1, and who perceive the petitioners' marriage as a threat to their honor and social standing.

As we see, the Bench then specifies in para 3 that:
Respondents no. 2 to 5 are the police authorities against whom the petitioners have prayed for directions to the effect that the petitioners' safety is ensured. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a representation highlighting the threat to the petitioners' lives, and seeking the implementation of appropriate measures to ensure the petitioners' safety, was filed before the police authorities on 01.03.2024. Nevertheless, the said representation was not duly considered by the police authorities.

Broadly speaking, the Bench points out in para 4 that:
This Court has often been called on to adjudicate cases wherein persons who apprehend extra-legal threats to their lives and liberty are compelled to approach this Court for the requisite directions to the police authorities to ensure their safety. This Court notes that on a daily basis, approximately 15-20 petitions with prayers for the reliefs as aforementioned are filed before this Court, often at the first instance and without the respective persons having earlier filed a representation before the respective police authorities for the implementation of adequate measures to safeguard the respective persons' lives and liberty. This Court is conscious of the institutional limitations of its adjudicatory processes in deciding the complex, and often disputed, questions of fact that are raised in petitions of this nature.

For instance, to adjudicate on the petitions pertaining to police protection that are filed by persons who are married/ are in a close relationship, including the instant writ petition, this Court must reach findings of fact on questions including the age and nationality of the respective persons seeking protection; the nature of the relationship between the parties (marriage, live-in relationship etc.); and the existence of free consent on part of the respective parties, especially the respective women, qua the marriage/ close relationship.

Given the nature of this Court's jurisdictions under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the CrPC 1973), this Court cannot adjudicate on such questions of fact through deploying the mechanisms for fact-finding that are available to and deployed by Courts of first instance. Nevertheless, this Court considers the filing of a sizeable number of petitions relating to police protection by persons who apprehend extra-legal threats to their safety, with most such petitions being filed before this Court at the first instance, to be indicative of an underlying systemic malaise which requires the intervention of this Court for the respective persons' lives and liberty to be safeguarded.

For clarity, the Bench clarifies in para 31 stating that:
Before parting with the instant case, this Court clarifies that the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21 may require the implementation of measures for enhanced police protection in the case of persons/groups, other than couples, who assert their personal autonomy in defiance of the existing social structures, and thus apprehend extra-legal threats to their lives and liberty. For instance, such protection may be required in the case of women who face threats of extra-legal violence from their family members, on account of their choice not to solemnize marriage at the family's behest. Such protection may also be required in the case of the persons, especially senior citizens, who refuse to concede to the extra-legal monetary demands made by the dominant political/social actors in the locality.

This Court clarifies that the directions and procedure specified in paragraphs 30 to 30.8 of this judgment would apply mutatis mutandis to the representations/complaints filed before the respective authorities by applicant(s) other than couples, qua the apprehended threats to the applicant(s)' lives and liberty.

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 32 that:
Registrar (Judicial) is directed to ensure that the present case is listed before this Court on 9 September 2024 to ascertain compliance with the directions of this Court regarding the promulgation of the appropriate 'Standard Operating Procedure' (SoP), and the appointment and constitution of the Police Complaints Authority at the state and district levels in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh (supra).

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 33 that:
A copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan to ensure compliance with the directions of this Court.

Do also note, the Bench then further notes in para 34 directing that, Petitioners no. 1 and 2 in the instant Writ Petition shall be at liberty to file the appropriate representation before a designated Nodal Officer in accordance with the directions of this Court, within the upper limit of 7 days of the date of this judgment. For the intervening period till the respective Nodal Officer having territorial jurisdiction over the matter considers and disposes of the representation filed (if any) in accordance with the directions of this Court, respondents no. 2 to 5 are directed to implement the requisite measures to ensure that the lives and liberty of petitioners no. 1 and 2 are protected from extra-legal threats from other social actors or groups, including respondents no. 6 to 10.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by aptly holding in para 35 that:
With the aforesaid directions, the instant Writ Petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh