V.B. Kannan Petitioner v. The Commissioner Of Police Chennai City Vepery, Chennai

Factual and Procedural Background

P.N. Prakash, J. considered a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to provide necessary and adequate police protection to the petitioner (Kannan) and his wife (Jobna Joseph) in view of the judgment in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2006) 5 SCC 475]. Kannan and Jobna married on 19.10.2016 at Mariamman Temple, Thanjavur and are living as man and wife. Kannan is described as Dalit and Jobna as Christian. Jobna's father, Joseph Antony, lodged a complaint of "woman missing" with the Inspector of Police, Elammakkara Police Station, Cochin City (fourth respondent), and an enquiry is being conducted to trace Jobna. Kannan apprehended that, because the marriage is inter-caste and inter-religious, the couple face a risk of honour killing if they travel to Ernakulam for the enquiry; he sought police protection. Kannan also gave a representation to the Inspector of Police, Maduravoyal Police Station; a petition enquiry is pending in CSR No. 592 of 2016.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether respondents 1–4 should be directed to provide necessary and adequate police protection to the petitioner and his wife.
2. Whether the direction in Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2006) 5 SCC 475]—that State instrumentalities must support and permit inter-caste and inter-religious marriages—is binding on the State functionaries in the present circumstance.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• The petitioner and Jobna Joseph are lawfully married and live as man and wife.
• The marriage is inter-caste (petitioner Dalit, wife Christian) and opposed by the wife's family.
• The wife's father lodged a "woman missing" complaint and police enquiries in Ernakulam may require the couple to travel there, exposing them to a risk of honour killing.
• The petitioner sought police protection by representation to the Inspector of Police, Maduravoyal Police Station; a related petition enquiry (CSR No. 592 of 2016) is pending.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court recorded the factual matrix: the parties' marriage, the caste and religion differences, the father's missing-person complaint and pending police enquiry, and the petitioner's apprehension of risk if the couple travel to Ernakulam. The Court applied the binding principle from Lata Singh—declared law under Article 141—that State instrumentalities must support and permit inter-caste and inter-religious marriages. Noting that the couple reside within the jurisdiction of the second respondent and that Kannan had already sought protection from Maduravoyal Police, the Court considered protection necessary to prevent harm. On that basis the Court directed procedural steps: the couple must appear before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ambattur and give a representation; the Deputy Commissioner must conduct an enquiry, afford sufficient police protection, and inform the Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam District, of the couple's residence and fear of peril.

Holding and Implications

The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ambattur to conduct an enquiry and afford sufficient police protection to Kannan and Jobna Joseph, and to inform the Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam District, of the couple's situation.

Direct effect: the couple must appear before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ambattur to seek protection; the DCP must enquire, provide protection, and notify the Ernakulam Superintendent of Police. The opinion applies the existing Supreme Court direction in Lata Singh and does not purport to set a new precedent.