Madhya Pradesh HC Dismisses Writ Seeking Armed Guard for Inter-Religious Couple, Refuses to Micromanage Security Deployment

The Indore Bench held that courts cannot dictate precise security modalities under Article 226, even where an inter-religious couple faces documented threats.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore has dismissed a writ petition filed by an inter-religious couple seeking round-the-clock armed police protection at their residence in Ratlam. Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, sitting singly, held that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not extend to directing the precise modalities of security deployment, and that courts cannot assume the role of the security establishment. The judgment, pronounced on 14 May 2026, comes against a backdrop of documented threats spanning several years, yet the bench found that the specific reliefs sought amounted to judicial micromanagement of police administration that the writ jurisdiction does not permit.

The Dispute Before the Court

The petitioners — a husband and wife — married in 2019 at the Arya Samaj Mandir, Surajmal Vihar, Delhi, following the wife's voluntary conversion from Islam to Hinduism. After the wife informed her family of the marriage and conversion, the couple began receiving threats from her family members and others. An Investigating Officer officially acknowledged this threat perception in a communication dated 28 September 2021, noting that the husband faced threats from individuals of another religion on account of the inter-religious marriage.

The couple shifted to Ratlam in 2022. Threats persisted, and the wife filed an earlier writ petition, W.P. No. 20420/2022, before the same court. By order dated 9 September 2022, the court directed the Superintendent of Police, Ratlam, to consider the petitioners' representation and pass necessary orders for police protection in accordance with law. Protection was subsequently granted.

Between 2024 and 2026, the couple alleged a fresh escalation. In 2024, an unknown person allegedly attempted to stop their car. On 19, 22, and 24 July 2025, an unidentified vehicle was observed roaming suspiciously near their residence, prompting a formal complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Ratlam. The police constables deputed for their security themselves filed reports corroborating the threat: on 29 October 2025, Constable Shankar Dewda reported that unknown persons on a motorcycle without a number plate were conducting surveillance of the house; on 23 March 2026, Constable Deepesh Bairagi reported seeing two masked individuals near the house who fled upon spotting him.

The petitioners submitted representations on 24 March 2026, 6 April 2026, and 30 April 2026 to higher authorities including the Inspector General of Police, Ujjain Range. The immediate trigger for the present petition was an order dated 13 April 2026, by which the respondents withdrew the armed gunman allotted to the petitioners and replaced him with a Home Guard personnel who possessed neither a firearm nor a mobile phone to alert authorities in an emergency.

Through Writ Petition No. 14252 of 2026, the petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide adequate, effective, and round-the-clock police protection including specialised security during night hours. They also sought quashing or modification of the 13 April 2026 action withdrawing the armed gunman, and directions for a proper investigation into the threats and suspicious activities reported by them and by the constables stationed at their residence.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the High Court, exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, could direct the respondents to re-allot an armed gunman, enhance existing police protection, and mandate round-the-clock security at the petitioners' residence. The petitioners grounded their claim in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, arguing that the removal of the armed gunman without any administrative reason was arbitrary, illegal, and a direct violation of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty.

Counsel for the petitioners relied on the Supreme Court's judgments in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another (AIR 2006 SC 2522) and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India [(2018) 7 SCC 192], which formulate guidelines obligating State administration and jurisdictional police to provide logistical support, establish safe houses, register FIRs promptly, and ensure effective investigation to protect couples in inter-caste or inter-religious marriages from harassment or mob violence.

The petitioners also argued that the security arrangement limited to daytime hours and executed by an unarmed guard was grossly insufficient, leaving them and their two minor sons — aged five years and two years — highly vulnerable during the night. They characterised the removal of the gunman on 13 April 2026 as a mechanical and unreasonable exercise of power demonstrating a sheer non-application of mind to the persistent high-risk threat perception.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Pillai began by delineating the scope of the court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 in matters concerning the administrative deployment of security personnel. The bench expressed concern at what it described as a pattern of writ petitions filed by inter-caste or inter-religious couples seeking continuous police protection without clear, substantive, and unimpeachable evidence of an ongoing, imminent threat.

The court acknowledged that the right to life under Article 21 is paramount. However, it held that the issuance of a continuous writ of mandamus for the deployment of specific security details requires strict scrutiny. The bench drew a distinction between general apprehensions or isolated incidents of suspicious vehicles — which, in its view, primarily warrant regular police patrolling and investigation — and the kind of clear proof of threat that would justify directing personal armed guards.

On the earlier order in W.P. No. 20420/2022, the bench was categorical. It held that the 9 September 2022 direction had merely required the Superintendent of Police, Ratlam, to consider and decide the petitioners' representation within seven days. That directive was strictly confined to the disposal of the representation. It did not, the court said, constitute a judicial mandate directing the police to provide continuous, round-the-clock security in perpetuity. The petitioners could not, therefore, rely on the earlier order to claim a vested, ongoing right to permanent armed protection.

The bench then addressed the specific reliefs sought. It held that the court cannot, in the name of protection, assume the role of the security establishment and issue blanket orders dictating the precise modalities of security deployment. Directing the respondents to “provide adequate and effective police protection” including “round-the-clock (24 hours) security protection” or to “re-allot gunman/enhance the existing police protection” fell outside the permissible scope of writ jurisdiction as the bench understood it.

At the same time, the court did not leave the petitioners without any recourse. It affirmed that it remains the absolute statutory and constitutional duty of the police administration to maintain law and order, and that local police authorities are obligated to take active, prompt, and appropriate action whenever a complaint of such nature is received. The bench directed that local police authorities must look into the gravity of the case and strictly adhere to the remedial and preventive guidelines formulated by the Supreme Court in Lata Singh and Shakti Vahini.

Scope of the Earlier Writ Order Clarified

A significant aspect of the judgment is the bench's clarification of what the 2022 order actually said. The petitioners had apparently treated the earlier direction — to consider their representation and pass necessary orders for police protection — as a continuing judicial mandate for armed security. Justice Pillai rejected this reading. A direction to consider a representation and act in accordance with law, he held, cannot by any stretch of imagination be read as a court order mandating perpetual armed protection. This clarification forecloses any argument that the 13 April 2026 withdrawal of the gunman was in breach of a judicial direction.

Outcome

Writ Petition No. 14252 of 2026 was dismissed. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs was made. The bench reiterated that the petitioners remain free to approach the local police or relevant authority whenever required, and that the police administration is bound to act on complaints in accordance with the guidelines in Lata Singh and Shakti Vahini.