Supreme Court Refuses Direct Intervention for Runaway Couple, Orders Appeal to Delhi High Court under Article 226 The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant , Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi rejected a plea for immediate protection of a young couple fleeing honour‑based threats. The advocates were instructed to file the petition before the Supreme Court only after the High Court has considered the case under Article 226 . Key Developments The couple, a boy from Uttar Pradesh and a girl from Bihar, claimed they could marry at the Supreme Court after watching viral social‑media reels . They approached Tilak Marg police station , but police attempted to detain them instead of offering protection. Advocate Harvinder Chaudhary , accompanied by lawyers Atul Kumar Yadav and Triprary Chopra, intervened and highlighted threats of honour killing, including a claim that the girl's parents would "hang the couple from a tree". The CJI emphasized the absence of dedicated shelter homes for runaway couples. The bench warned against a simplistic view, noting that some eloping men may already be married, complicating protection orders. Important Facts Date of hearing: 20 March 2026 . Location: Supreme Court, New Delhi. Legal route suggested: File a writ petition in the Delhi High Court under Article 226. Potential outcome: High Court to assess personal liberty and issue protection orders if warranted. UPSC Relevance This case touches upon several core areas of the UPSC syllabus. Understanding the hierarchy and jurisdiction of courts ( Supreme Court and High Court jurisdiction ) is essential for Polity. The incident underscores the challenge of honour killing , a recurring theme in Indian society and a focus of the Ethics and Social Justice papers. Moreover, the role of police detention and the need for protective infrastructure like shelter homes highlight governance and welfare policy issues. Way Forward Immediate filing of a writ petition in the Delhi High Court under Article 226 for protection and direction to the police. State governments should strengthen the network of shelter homes for runaway couples. Law enforcement agencies need clear SOPs to handle cases involving potential honour‑based violence, ensuring compliance with constitutional rights. Public awareness campaigns to counter misleading social‑media reels about legal procedures and marriage norms. Periodic judicial review of protective mechanisms for vulnerable youths to align with evolving societal challenges.