Gujarat HC Directs Police Protection For Adult Couple Married Against Their Families’ Wishes

In brief

The question

Whether the petitioners, as adult spouses who alleged threats following their marriage, were entitled to police protection.

The court held

The Court directed the concerned police station to provide police protection to the petitioners in accordance with law.

It also directed

The petition was disposed of, and the Rule was made absolute to that extent.

01Facts

The petitioners, both adults, married on 14 August 2026 against their families’ wishes and feared threats to their lives.

p. 2

Petitioner No. 2 sent a representation seeking police protection to the State Home Department and the Superintendent of Police, Kutch, on 21 August 2026.

p. 2

The petitioners were subsequently called to Mangrol Police Station, where a statement was recorded; they alleged that no effective protection followed.

p. 2

They also complained to the Gujarat State Human Rights Commission, alleging illegal police pressure and seeking protection through an impartial agency.

p. 3

They petitioned under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking protection at their residence and the petitioner No. 1’s workplace, as well as protection for court attendance.

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.Whether the petitioners, as adult spouses who alleged threats following their marriage, were entitled to police protection.

pp. 2–4

ii.Whether the Court should direct the concerned police station to provide that protection in accordance with law.

p. 4

03Law Applied

The petition invoked Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, which protect equality, freedoms and life and personal liberty, and Articles 226 and 227, under which the High Court may grant appropriate writ relief and exercise supervisory jurisdiction.

p. 2

The Court relied on Lata Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2007 (1) G.L.H. 41, and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192, as authorities relevant to protection for couples who marry against family opposition. The judgment does not set out a separate statement of the principles derived from those decisions.

p. 3

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioners were adults, had married, and had made representations seeking protection; it also considered their complaint to the Gujarat State Human Rights Commission.

pp. 2–3

In light of those circumstances and the cited Supreme Court authorities, the Court concluded that police protection was warranted. It did not separately assess each requested form of protection or make detailed findings on the alleged threats.

p. 4