The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to grant round-the-clock personal police protection to an interfaith couple from Ratlam, ruling that continuous armed security cannot be ordered based merely on “general apprehensions” or suspicious activities.
In a judgment delivered on May 14, Justice Jai Kumar Pillai of the High Court’s Indore bench dismissed a writ petition filed by the couple. The court emphasized that while the right to life under Article 21 is paramount, the judiciary cannot step into the role of the security establishment to dictate the precise modalities of police deployments.
Background of the Dispute
The petitioners—a husband and wife currently residing in Ratlam city—were married in 2019 at an Arya Samaj temple in Delhi according to Hindu customs. According to their plea, the wife, who previously practiced Islam, converted to Hinduism of her own free will.
The couple alleged that soon after informing the woman’s parents of their marriage and her conversion, they began receiving serious threats to their lives and safety from her family and other individuals. These persistent threats led the woman to first approach the High Court in 2022.
At that time, the High Court directed the Ratlam Superintendent of Police to consider the couple’s application in accordance with the law, after which the local administration provided them with security.
However, the situation changed on April 13, when the armed guard assigned to the couple was removed without any administrative reason and replaced by a Home Guard jawan who possessed neither a gun nor a mobile phone.
Citing new security concerns—including an attempt by an unknown individual to stop their car and a suspicious vehicle loitering near their residence—the couple filed the current writ petition. They requested 24-hour personal police protection and special nighttime security.
Court Rejects ‘Blanket’ Protection Petitions
During the High Court hearing, the state government strongly opposed the couple’s petition and the specific reliefs they sought.
After reviewing the arguments and records, Justice Pillai noted that the court’s 2022 order directing the Ratlam Superintendent of Police to “consider” the application legally was not a “judicial mandate” to provide permanent, 24-hour security.
The High Court also expressed broader concern over the growing volume of similar legal filings.
“This court observes with concern the filing of a bundle of petitions where, in almost every inter-caste or inter-religion marriage, the couple registers a writ petition seeking continuous police protection without any clear, substantive, and unimpeachable evidence of an ongoing, imminent threat,” the single-judge bench observed.
Justice Pillai clarified that extraordinary personal security requires high standards of proof.
“Every writ petition seeking such extraordinary protection must be substantiated by clear proof of threat, rather than general apprehensions or isolated incidents of suspicious vehicles, which primarily warrant regular police patrolling and investigation rather than personal armed guards,” the court stated.
Consequently, the court ruled that it cannot assume the role of security agencies or issue blanket orders to micromanage security details under its writ jurisdiction.
Police Administration Still Duty-Bound, Says HC
Despite dismissing the petition, the High Court emphasized that the local police administration remains entirely responsible for safeguarding the couple under existing legal frameworks.
“Nonetheless, it remains the absolute statutory and constitutional duty of the police administration to maintain law and order. The authorities are obliged to take active, prompt, and appropriate action whenever a complaint of such nature is received,” the bench clarified.
The High Court added that the local police are expected to evaluate the gravity of the couple’s case and strictly adhere to the remedial and preventive guidelines established by the Supreme Court of India in two landmark apex court rulings.
