Introduction:

In Kamalpreet Kaur & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (CRWP‑6236‑2025), a bench led by Justice Rohit Kapoor of the Punjab & Haryana High Court expressed serious concern over the surge of protection petitions filed by runaway couples—the result, the Court noted, of widespread ignorance regarding Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) framed after the landmark Kajal v. State of Haryana ruling. Despite SOPs being officially notified in January and June, Justice Kapoor observed that neither the affected couples nor the police officials are aware of these guidelines. Consequently, petitions are flooding the Court before giving authorities a chance to act under the SOP framework, and without pursuing administrative appeals as mandated. The bench thereby directed state authorities to widely circulate the SOPs among the public, police, and legal fraternity, and urged stricter compliance to curb needless judicial interventio.

Arguments of Petitioners (Runaway Couples):

• Immediate Threat to Life and Liberty: The couples asserted they were subjected to threats from family members upon elopement or inter­caste/inter­faith relationships, necessitating urgent protection.
• Judicial Relief Preference: They argued that High Court intervention was essential, given delays and inertia in the administrative process under SOPs.
• Lack of Administrative Response: Petitioners claimed that authorities either ignored their police representations or failed to act within prescribed timelines, leaving judicial recourse their sole timely option.

Arguments of Respondents (State, Police, Chandigarh Administration):

• Existence of Administrative Remedy: The respondents pointed to SOPs framed post-Kajal as a complete administrative framework to address runaway couple petitions efficiently.
• Time-Frame and Appeal Mechanism: SOPs outline fast-track inquiry by ASI within 3 days, DSP appeal in 7 days, and subsequent High Court recourse—meaning administrative remedy must be exhausted first.
• Unawareness is Administrative Delay: Any delay was attributed to implementation lapses by state officials, not inherent inefficacy in SOPs.
• Commitment to Publicity: Through counsel—Mr. Ishan Kaushal (Punjab AAG), Mr. Praveen Bhadu (Haryana AG), and Mr. Abhinav Sood (Chandigarh)—the states undertook to widely publicize SOPs and enforce compliance.

High Court’s Observations & Decision:

• Lack of Public Awareness: Justice Kapoor held that SOP ignorance has triggered unnecessary court filings without giving administrative channels a chance—defeating SOP purpose.
• Institutional Laxity: The bench criticized police and administrative officials for being unaware of or flouting SOP timelines and instructions “in strict letter and spirit”.
• Flooding the Judiciary: The Court lamented the overwhelming number of petitions burdening judicial benches, many of which could have been resolved administratively.
• Formal Undertakings: Counsel pledged to enhance dissemination of SOPs among public, police, and legal professionals.

Judicial Directions:

The Court directed:

• Immediate and widespread publication of SOPs across media, public offices, and police stations.
• Copy to be circulated to all Bar members for client advisement.
• Forwarding of current petitioners’ June 9, 2025 representation to authorities under SOP rules, to be resolved administratively.
• Outcome: The petition was disposed of with directions that proper administrative remedy be availed as per SOP before approaching courts.

The Kajal SOP Framework:

Following Kajal v. State of Haryana (June 2024), Justice Sandeep Moudgil issued guidelines empowering local police to act swiftly when runaway couples allege threat to life/liberty. This administrative mechanism includes designated officers (ASI, DSP) to investigate and render decisions within narrow timelines—a model aimed at relieving courts from becoming the first recourse.

Implications & Recommendations:

• Decongesting Courts: Strengthening and publicizing administrative SOPs is vital to reducing High Court dependency for rescue petitions.
• Accountability: State police and authorities must strictly comply with deadlines under SOPs; training and oversight are essential.
• Educating Citizens and Lawyers: Legal practitioners and vulnerable individuals must be made aware of alternative remedies under SOPs, now disseminated via court order.
• Dialogue Between Bench and Executive: This decision underscores the judiciary’s proactive role in coordinating with state authorities to implement judicially crafted policies effectively.

Conclusion:

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has sounded an urgent alarm: runaway couples continue swarming the High Court for protection orders simply because they—and even police officials—are unaware of SOPs crafted post-Kajal to handle such issues quickly and administratively. Justice Kapoor lamented that SOPs, designed to expedite protection within days, remain buried in inaction. With the Court overloaded by petitions that could be resolved at the police or administrative level, officials have been directed to publicize the SOPs widely among citizens, police, and lawyers. This case is a powerful reminder of the need to bridge the gap between judicial innovation and ground‑level implementation. Swift executive compliance with judicial orders is essential to preserve the integrity of administrative remedies, reduce judicial burden, and ensure timely protection for those in need.