Himachal Pradesh High Court Allows Writ Petition for Protection of Life and Liberty Under Article 21

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

In the case, of Karan and another vs State of Himachal Pradesh, the petitioners have invoked Article 21 of Right to life, through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The plea sought safety to the petitioners’ life and personal liberty after they married against their parent’s wishes.The Coram constituted of Mr Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, and Ms Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua.

Brief facts of the Case 

The petitioners wished to get married to each other but the parents of both the respondents did not agree. The parents consider the marriage to be against their norms and rules as the marriage is apparently based on intercaste relations.

Due to the aforesaid situation, the petitioners married each other against their parent’s will. Further, the parents are against this marriage. So, the petitioners are fearful and have the apprehension that there may be a threat to their safety. Moreover, they speculate that their parents might try to annihilate their union. The petitioners claim that the respondents may administer actions that may hinder their liberty and also may be a threat to their lives.

Therefore, to protect their lives and personal liberty, the petitioners have reached the court. They have invoked Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners have pleaded the court for the protection of their right through a writ petition under Article 226 of the same. Through this petition, the petitioners seek protection by the court against their parents. 

Arguments Before the Court

The petitioners believe that their parents are a threat to their marriage, lives and personal liberty. Thus, they demand the necessary actions to safeguard the same.  

Court’s Observations

The court has observed that the prayers of the petitioners are legitimate. Thus, the fundamental right of the petitioners needs immediate attention and necessary directions. Further, the petitioners require protection from the police to save them from harassment by the respondents.

Judgement

Based on the aforementioned facts and situation, the court held that the petitioner indeed needs protection. Thus, the court ordered for police protection to safeguard their fundamental rights. It further ordered the police to assure that petitioners’ life and personal liberty does not incur any harm.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -