Ravinderpal Kaur And Anr. vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Facts
The petitioners, Ravinderpal Kaur and another, filed a writ petition seeking protection of their life and liberty, alleging threats of death if petitioner No. 1 married petitioner No. 2. The High Court was also informed about the vandalism of an advocate's car by family members of petitioner No. 1, prompting an issue regarding CCTV camera installation in the High Court premises. The State of Punjab reported that petitioner No. 1 stated she was not facing any threat and did not require security. Regarding CCTV cameras, a joint survey was conducted, and locations within the High Court complex were marked. The Engineering Department requested approval for tentative locations. A tentative time schedule for replacing old and installing new CCTV cameras was provided, estimating completion in approximately 9 months. Additionally, the installation of hydraulic bollards was estimated to take about 6 months. A rough estimate for CCTV camera installation on roads leading to the High Court was Rs. 5,15,69,529/-, with a total completion time of 18 months after work approval. The estimated cost for bollard installation was Rs. 5,22,77,757/-.
Held
The Court held that no further directions were required regarding the protection of the petitioners' life and liberty, as petitioner No. 1 had stated she was not facing any threat and did not require security. Regarding the installation of CCTV cameras and hydraulic bollards, the Court noted the detailed status reports filed by the respondents, including surveys, marking of locations, estimates, and tentative timelines for completion. The process was stated to be ongoing in consultation with the High Court's Building Committee. The Court found that the steps being taken by the authorities were satisfactory and that no further directions were needed in this regard. The ratio decidendi is that once the concerned authority has taken steps to address the security concerns and provided a reasonable timeline for implementation, and the individual seeking protection states no immediate threat, the High Court may not need to issue further directions. The petition was disposed of.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to protection of their life and liberty from respondents No. 4 to 17, as they allegedly threatened the petitioners with death if petitioner No. 1 married petitioner No. 2? (Question of fact and law) 2. Whether CCTV cameras and hydraulic bollards are to be installed within and around the High Court premises to enhance security? (Question of fact and law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners sought protection of their life and liberty due to alleged threats. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the petitioners regarding the CCTV installation, but their initial petition implicitly raised the need for security measures. Respondents' arguments: The State of Punjab, through instructions, informed the Court that petitioner No. 1 stated she was not facing any threat and did not require security. The UT, Chandigarh, through its Senior Standing Counsel, submitted details regarding the ongoing process of installing CCTV cameras and hydraulic bollards, including surveys, marking of locations, estimates, and tentative timelines, indicating that the process was being undertaken in consultation with the High Court's Building Committee.
Sections Cited
None
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CRWP No.9075-2022 1 2023:PHHC:164080-DB 121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No.9075-2022 Date of Decision:20.12.2023 Ravinderpal Kaur and another ....... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA *** Present: Mr. Jagandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Anu Pal, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Mr.Anil Mehta, Sr.Standing Counsel with Mr. Jaivir S.Chandail, Addl.Standing Counsel, Mr.Sumit Jain, Addl.PP and Ms. Jyoti Kumari, Advocate for respondent-UT, Chandigarh. Mr.Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate for Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association. *** RITU BAHRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE(ORAL)
The present petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No. 1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of respondents no. 4 to 17 because they are threatening petitioner No.1 that in case she performs marriage with petitioner No.2, both of them will be killed.
On 21.09.2022 this Court was informed by the office bearers of the High Court Bar Association that the car of
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.