The Punjab & Haryana High Court has sharply criticised the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) for delaying a decision on a plea filed by a runaway couple seeking protection.
The Court pointed out a 5-day delay in acting on the representation submitted by the couple, despite a clear Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) that mandates such matters be addressed within three days. This SOP was issued by the Department of Home Affairs following directions from the Court in the case Kajal v. State of Haryana.
Read also: Court Grants Compensation to Unborn Child in Motor Accident Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court
"The Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) himself is responsible for the delay and should not make a clerk the scapegoat," remarked Justice Sandeep Moudgil.
The Court found that the representation, which should have been processed promptly, was not placed before the SSP for five days. This delay suggested a lack of urgency and ineffective communication within the SSP’s office, despite the routine nature of the process.
"This oversight deserves to be condemned," Justice Moudgil added, highlighting that the SSP, being the head of the district’s law enforcement, was well aware of the SOP guidelines.
Although the Court refrained from taking direct action against the officer—considering the SOP was recently introduced—it firmly asserted that law enforcement agencies must act swiftly in such sensitive matters.
"The forces like the one involved in the case, which are expected to act swiftly and effectively, should not suppress such matters."
Read also: Punjab Police Recruitment | Non-Disclosure of Pending FIRs Leads to Disqualification: High Court
The Court chose a path of cautious advice rather than punishment, saying:
"With this in mind, the Court offers a word of advice and will dispose of this petition, trusting that good sense will prevail among the officer involved."
The hearing involved a runaway couple fearing threats from their families, who had filed a request for protection. Their representation was received on March 20, 2025, and only on March 25 was it referred to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Phagwara, who then marked it for further action as per SOP compliance.
"The same was finally examined and the inquiry got concluded and the matter was disposed of on 26.03.2025 but the copy placed on record of the said inquiry so conducted at...do not bear the date of its completion neither it bears any endorsement number or any other marking to show that it is made part of the police record," noted the Court.
The Court examined the affidavit submitted by the SSP and found that a show cause notice was issued to Clerk Mukesh Kumar on March 26. The notice was regarding negligence in handling the representation, which had remained at his desk in the Central Diary Branch, District Kapurthala, even after it was received.
Despite this, Justice Moudgil stressed that the blame cannot be shifted to the clerk alone:
"The SSP himself is responsible for the delay and should not make a clerk the scapegoat as the SSP being head of the District of Law Enforcing Agency was fully aware of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued."
Taking into account the circumstances, the Court advised the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, Government of Punjab to circulate a direction to all police units via the SSPs/SPs/Commissionerates. This should act as a reminder to prevent similar delays.
While closing the matter, the Court issued a firm reminder:
"The time frame legislated in the SOP shall be adhered to strictly as the matter is not such simplicitor of deciding and hearing the representation but to ensure that no human life is taken casually and is protected."
Mr. Nitin Mitto, Advocate and Mr. Anshul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG, Punjab.
Title: XXX v. State of Punjab
