Introduction:

In the case XXX v. State of Haryana and Others (2025 LiveLaw (PH) 01), the Punjab and Haryana High Court, through Justice Sandeep Moudgil, laid down a comprehensive framework to streamline the process of addressing protection pleas filed by individuals, particularly runaway couples, alleging threats to their life and liberty. The judgment, delivered in a 23-page order dated December 24, 2024, highlighted the need for a structured administrative mechanism to deal with such cases and reduce the burden on the judiciary. The guidelines aim to ensure prompt inquiry, accountability, and transparency while addressing such matters efficiently and safeguarding constitutional rights.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioners, represented by Advocate Vishal Sharma, contended that the State authorities lacked a streamlined mechanism to address protection pleas, leading to delays in providing relief to individuals facing imminent threats. They argued that the delay often jeopardized their safety and necessitated judicial intervention in a large number of cases. They sought directions from the High Court to compel the State to establish an effective administrative framework to handle such matters promptly and transparently.

The Advocate Generals of Haryana, Punjab, and Chandigarh, along with other respondents, acknowledged the rising number of protection pleas before the High Court, consuming significant judicial time. They submitted that while the State had existing mechanisms in place, there was scope for improvement to ensure faster resolution of such cases. They also highlighted that in many instances, the petitions were frivolous, lacking genuine threat perception. The respondents emphasized the need for a mechanism to filter such cases at the administrative level while protecting the rights of those facing genuine threats. The Amicus Curiae, Mr. Sanjay Jain, supported the need for a dedicated system, emphasizing the significance of maintaining a balance between protecting individuals’ rights and managing judicial resources effectively.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Sandeep Moudgil, acknowledging the increasing number of protection pleas, underscored the urgency of establishing a robust administrative mechanism to address such cases effectively. The Court observed that more than four hours of its working day were consumed in dealing with these petitions, leaving critical matters like pending trials, bail applications, and appeals against convictions unattended. The judgment emphasized that judicial time could be better utilized if protection pleas were efficiently resolved at the administrative level.

The Court framed a set of 12 guidelines aimed at ensuring prompt and effective redressal of protection pleas. It directed the State Governments of Haryana, Punjab, and Chandigarh to appoint nodal officers at district headquarters responsible for overseeing compliance with these guidelines. Each police station would also designate an officer of Assistant Sub-Inspector rank to handle protection representations and conduct inquiries within three days. The inquiry process would include hearing both the complainants and the accused parties, ensuring a fair and transparent decision-making process.

The guidelines further mandated the creation of an appellate authority at the district level, headed by an officer, not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Aggrieved parties could appeal the initial decision within three days, and the appellate authority was required to resolve the appeal within seven days. This multi-layered approach, the Court noted, would reinforce accountability and provide an additional layer of scrutiny before invoking the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction.

Additionally, the Court directed the establishment of 24/7 helpdesks at district police offices to address life and liberty threat representations and maintain electronic records of such cases. Quarterly review meetings would be conducted by Senior Superintendents or Commissioners of Police, with compliance reports submitted to the Director General of Police, who would also review adherence to the guidelines.

Justice Moudgil highlighted the importance of a structured approach in fostering good governance and upholding the rule of law. He observed that the guidelines would not only expedite the resolution of protection pleas but also instil public confidence in the State’s ability to safeguard constitutional rights. The judgment stressed that transparency, accountability, and a sense of urgency were essential in addressing life and liberty threats effectively.

The Court also emphasized the need for effective communication to prevent frivolous cases from overburdening the system. It urged the State to filter petitions lacking genuine threat perception while ensuring that individuals facing legitimate threats received prompt protection. Justice Moudgil concluded that these measures would significantly reduce the High Court’s workload and ensure that judicial time is allocated to more pressing matters.

Conclusion:

In its landmark judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court set a precedent by framing detailed guidelines for handling protection pleas at the administrative level. By mandating accountability, transparency, and prompt resolution, the Court aimed to address the rising number of life and liberty threat petitions while preserving judicial resources. The decision underscores the importance of administrative efficiency in safeguarding constitutional rights and fostering public trust in the State’s ability to ensure justice.