The Allahabad High Court is once again under scrutiny for controversial statements in sensitive cases. In a recent judgment, Justice Saurabh Srivastava denied police protection to a couple who married against their families’ wishes, stating that such couples can’t claim security as a right unless there’s a genuine threat to their life or freedom. He cited the Supreme Court’s Lata Singh vs State of UP ruling, which held that courts are not shelters for all runaway couples unless danger is proven.
The court noted there was no evidence suggesting harm from the couple’s families. However, it added that if the local police find a real threat, they are expected to act accordingly.
This is not the first time the Allahabad HC has raised eyebrows. Just last month, it drew fierce criticism after ruling that groping a woman and pulling her pyjama string did not amount to attempted r*pe. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of that judgment, calling it “inhuman” and “totally insensitive.”
A bench led by Justice BR Gavai stayed the ruling, noting that the decision was not impulsive but made after months of deliberation – which made the insensitivity even more disturbing.
More recently, on April 15, the top court slammed another HC judge’s comment suggesting that a rape complainant “invited trouble” by visiting the accused’s home after consuming alcohol.
These rulings have triggered a wave of outrage, spotlighting the urgent need for sensitivity in judicial discourse.
