Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a plea by an interfaith couple seeking round-the-clock police protection, cautioning against what it described as a growing trend of couples approaching constitutional courts for “continuous police protection” without “clear, substantive, and unimpeachable evidence” of imminent danger.
In his ruling, Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed that courts cannot “assume the role of the security establishment” by dictating how security personnel should be deployed. The court said: “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 court added that while Article 21 protections were paramount, extraordinary judicial orders for permanent security arrangements required strict scrutiny. “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 order said.
The petition had been filed by a Ratlam-based couple who married in 2019 according to Hindu rites at an Arya Samaj temple in after the woman, originally a Muslim, converted to Hinduism “out of her own free will and consent”. The couple told the court that they had faced sustained threats from the woman’s relatives and others opposed to the interfaith marriage. They also said they had two minor children and had repeatedly complained to police authorities about suspicious activity near their residence.
According to the petition, an investigating officer had acknowledged the threat perception in 2021, noting that the husband faced threats from persons “of another religion” because of the inter-religious marriage. After shifting to Ratlam in 2022, the couple had earlier approached the high court, following which police protection was granted.
The fresh litigation arose after authorities allegedly withdrew an armed gunman on April 13, 2026, and replaced him with an unarmed home guard personnel. The petitioners argued that the reduced protection violated their right to life and liberty under Article 21.
Their counsel contended that the couple remained vulnerable, particularly during night hours. The petition detailed several incidents between 2024 and 2026, including alleged attempts to stop their car, suspicious vehicles near their home, and reports by police constables claiming that masked individuals and persons on motorcycles without number plates had been conducting surveillance near the residence.
But the court drew a distinction between ensuring law and order and judicially supervising security deployment. “This Court cannot, in the name of protection, assume the role of the security establishment and issue blanket orders to dictate the precise modalities of security deployment,” the order said.
Rejecting the demand for 24-hour armed protection, the Bench specifically held that it could not direct the State “to provide adequate and effective police protection to the Petitioners and their family members, including round-the-clock (24 hours) security protection, at their residence or wherever they are,” nor could it order re-allotment of gunmen or deployment of additional police personnel during night hours.
The court also clarified the scope of its earlier 2022 order in favour of the couple. “A plain reading of the said order makes it abundantly clear that the directive was strictly confined to the disposal of the representation. It did not, by any stretch of imagination, constitute a judicial mandate or order directing the police authorities to provide continuous, round-the-clock security in perpetuity,” the order stated.
At the same time, the Bench reaffirmed the responsibility of police authorities to respond whenever a genuine threat emerges. “It remains the absolute statutory and constitutional duty of the police administration to maintain law and order. The authorities are obligated to take active, prompt, and appropriate action whenever a complaint of such nature is received,” the court observed.
