Read Time: 07 minutes

Dismissing a writ petition of Habeas Corpus moved by father of a 16-year-old Muslim girl, the Allahabad High Court held that merely on the apprehension in the garb of an implied threat of communal tension, no writ of habeas corpus can be issued.

Girl’s father had submitted before the bench of Justice Vikas Kunvar Srivastav that there was an apprehension of communal tension in the village as his daughter had been allegedly detained by a Hindu boy.

The court noted that this apprehension was an unfounded one and the girl, the alleged detenue, being an adult herself had desired to go with the Hindu boy whom she wanted to marry.

Court stressed that the girl’s father had not come to court with clean hands as even before filing the instant plea he very well knew about his daughter’s wish to marry the hindu boy and he had wilfully concealed these facts from the court.

Court held that “As such, a fraud is committed upon the court for the purpose of seeking advantage by the petitioner.”

Therefore, citing Apex court’s ruling in Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others (2006), the court held,

“In the circumstances of the case merely on the apprehension in the garb of an implied threat of communal tension in the village for the reason of different religions of the couples, no writ of habeas corpus can be issued.”

Court further directed the local police to ensure peace and tranquility in the locality and to maintain the law and order.

Dismissing the plea, court also highlighted that the pleadings made in the writ petition had nowhere stated about the Hindu boy being in collusion with the police authorities or any public officer with regard to any act or omission.

This was also among the grounds for rejection of the plea as a writ cannot lie against the private person, where he violates fundamental rights that are enshrined under Article 17, 23 and 29 of the Constitution of India. However, writ may be issued against the private person, if it is found that the act of the person is in collusion with a public authority.

Most importantly, the court went on to direct the Director General of Police, U.P. to direct the Local police officers to keep vigil over the society in the locality and to ensure that the couple are not harassed by anyone, nor subjected to threats or acts of violence.

Court added that the DGP will also ensure that anyone who gives threats or harasses or commits act of violence either himself or at his instigation against the couple, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action be taken against such persons as provided in the law.

Furthermore, court stressed that it will be the responsibility of the Director General of Police and the local police officers to ensure the law and order as well peace and tranquility in the locality, so as to eradicate apprehension if any as raised by the petitioner.

Case Title: Km. Hashmi Thru. Her Father Natural Guardian Usman v. State of U.P. & Ors.