The High Court reaffirmed that filing a writ petition seeking protection of life and liberty with a false claim regarding residence can be grounds for dismissal. This judgment upholds the settled principle requiring bona fide and accurate disclosure in such petitions; it stands as binding precedent within the territorial jurisdiction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and is instructive for similar writs, particularly in cases involving alleged threats to personal liberty.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRWP/9850/2025 of MANSI AND ANOTHER Vs UT CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC011456612025 |
| Date of Registration | 08-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the Punjab & Haryana High Court jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Constitutional Law (Article 226/227; Right to Life and Liberty) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition seeking protection of life and liberty is maintainable if filed with an incorrect or false disclosure of residential address. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that a petition under Article 226/227 filed on the basis of a false or incorrect residential disclosure is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. After physical verification, the petitioners were found neither residing nor ever to have resided at the given address; the misrepresentation vitiated the credibility of their plea for protection. The principle of bona fide disclosure and candour in writ petitions was thus affirmed as essential. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners sought directions to the authorities to protect their life and liberty and to restrain private respondents, claiming residence in Milk Colony, Dhanas, Chandigarh. State counsel, on instructions from the local police, reported that the petitioners were not residing and had never resided at the claimed address, as physically verified, demonstrating a wrongful disclosure. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India, when dealing with similar writ petitions for protection based on residential claims |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Filing a writ petition under Article 226/227 with false residential details is a valid ground for outright dismissal.
- Physical verification by authorities of petitioners’ claimed address can be decisive in such cases.
- The judgment underscores the requirement of bona fide and accurate disclosure in petitions seeking protection of life and liberty.
- Lawyers must ensure thorough verification of all foundational facts in such petitions to avoid adverse orders and potential disciplinary consequences.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the petitioners’ claim of residing at a specific address was central to their plea for protection of life and liberty.
- On instructions from the police, the State Counsel informed the court that a physical verification was conducted and the petitioners were found neither residing nor ever to have resided at the stated address.
- The court concluded that this amounted to a wrongful disclosure and the petition stood vitiated for lack of bona fide, justifying dismissal.
- Emphasized that accurate factual representation is a foundational requirement for invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the court.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought directions for protection of life and liberty against private respondents.
- Claimed residence at House No. 574, Milk Colony, Dhanas, Chandigarh.
Respondent (State of U.T. Chandigarh)
- State Counsel, on instructions from ASI Brahm S. Rana, submitted that the petitioners were not residing nor had ever resided at the stated address, as ascertained by physical verification.
Factual Background
The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226/227, seeking protection of their life and liberty and requesting restraint orders against private respondents. Their plea was premised on their claimed residence at House No. 574, Milk Colony, Dhanas, Chandigarh. However, the State, after conducting physical verification, reported to the court that the petitioners were not and had never been resident at the claimed address, demonstrating wrongful disclosure underlying the petition.
Statutory Analysis
- The court considered the invocation of constitutional remedies under Articles 226 and 227 for protection of life and liberty.
- No further statutory interpretation or analysis is detailed in the judgment excerpt provided.
Procedural Innovations
- The State produced verification of the petitioners’ residential status via police report/physical verification, relied upon by the court in dismissal.
- No other procedural innovations are specified.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Existing principle of bona fide disclosure in writ petitions reaffirmed.