"Strange": Says Supreme Court While Dismissing Challenge By NCPCR & NCW To Direction For Police Protection For Minor Muslim Couple

The Supreme Court said that it was strange that the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and the National Commission of Women were challenging an order of the High Court asking Senior Superintendent of Police, Pathankot to decide the representation made by the Muslim minor couple and take necessary action as per law.

SLPs were filed against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby a Writ Petition filed by a Muslim minor couple who got married and sought protection at the hands of certain private parties was allowed.

The Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, "If the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to extend protection to two individuals, it is strange that the petitioners are challenging such an order. The petitioners herein in fact have no locus standi to challenge the same."

A batch of SLPs were filed by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and National Commission for Women (NCW) against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court to protect their life and liberty owing to their apprehensions regarding their life and liberty.

The High Court exercised of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to extend protection to two individuals.

Court's Observation

The Supreme Court noted that it was strange that the NCPRC and NCW were challenging such an order. The NCPCR and NCW had no locus standi to challenge the same.

"It is strange that if the High Court has extended relief to minor children, the NCPCR, which is meant for protection of children assails such an order of the High Court. Hence, the special leave petitions are dismissed", the Court observed.

Background

A Writ Petition was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking to protect the life and liberty of the Respondents at the hands of private parties. Both of them were Muslims. They fellin love some time ago and decided to perform marriage.

It was highlighted by the Respondents that in Muslim law puberty and majority are one and the same and that there is a presumption that a person attains majority at the age of 15 years. It was further contented that a Muslim boy or Muslim girl who had attained puberty was at liberty to marry any one he or she likes and the guardian has no right to interfere.

"Thus, both the petitioners are of marriageable age as envisaged by Muslim Personal Law. In any event, the issue in hand is not with regard to the validity of the marriage but to address the apprehension raised by the petitioners of danger to their life and liberty at the hands of the private respondents and to provide them protection as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for protection of life and personal liberty and further lays down that no person shall be deprived of his or her life and personal liberty except as per the procedure established by law", the High Court observed.

Cause Title: National Commission For Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) V. Gulaan Deen

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate H.S Phoolka, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR Mr. Bhuwan Ribhu, Adv. Ms. Rachna Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Saksham Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Shashi, Adv. Ms. Surabhi Katyal, Adv. Ms. Taruna Panwar, Adv.

Respondent: Arjun Harkauli, AOR Mr. Ramchandra Madan, Adv. Mr. Abeer Shandilya, Adv. Mr. Prateek Garg, Adv. Mr. Prateek Grag, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Vashist, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv. Mr. Devansh Tyagi, Adv. Mrs. C Rubavathi, Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR Mr. Kamal Pundir, Adv. Mr. Chander Bhan, Adv. Mr. Padhmanabha Raja Kr, Adv. Mr. Abhaid Parikh , AOR Mr. Rishbh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Shivani Gupta, Adv.

Click here to read/download Order