Security is Not a Status Symbol: Allahabad High Court Rejects Plea for CRPF Protection

In a robust affirmation of democratic equality, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed a petition seeking armed Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) protection, sternly criticizing the growing trend of treating state-provided security as a "status symbol."

The division bench, comprising Justices Saral Srivastava and Sudhanshu Chauhan, ruled that the judiciary cannot be used to facilitate a "privileged class" at the expense of the public exchequer.

The Fight for 'VIP' Status

The petitioners, Vikas Chaudhary and another, moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, demanding immediate CRPF cover. They cited three prior First Information Reports (FIRs)—involving property damage, alleged fraudulent deeds, and mobile phone hacking—as evidence of a "grave and persistent threat" to their lives.

However, the Court noted a significant disconnect between the petitioners' assertions and the evidence on record. The bench observed that the writ petition failed to disclose a single specific instance of a direct threat to their lives, nor did it name any individuals who had proactively threatened them beyond the parties already listed in their previous FIRs. Crucially, the petitioners were already under the protection of a police guard granted in August 2023.

Courts Are Not Security Experts

The Court took a firm stance on the scope of its jurisdiction. It clarified that determining the nature of threat perception is a fact-intensive exercise that must remain within the purview of the executive authorities—such as the Intelligence Bureau—rather than the High Court.

"This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot substitute its decision for that of the competent authority pertaining to the threat apprehension," the judgment noted.

The Verdict: Taxpayers' Money is Not for Privileged Classes

The judgment serves as a cautionary tale against the entitlement often associated with security details. The court drew heavily on precedents, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramveer Upadhyay vs. R.M. Srivastava and the Allahabad High Court’s own observations in Abhishek Tiwari vs. State of U.P. , to emphasize that security should be a matter of genuine necessity, not patronage.

In a poignant observation about the state of modern administration, the Court remarked that the provision of security personnel has become a way to create a "coterie of 'obliged' and 'loyal' persons," using limited public resources to "bolster the ego" of individuals rather than serving the public interest.

Key Observations

> "Moreover, we find that the provision for security in the shape of police personnel has become more of a status symbol by means of which, a privileged class has been created at the expense of the State and the taxpayers’ money."

> "The State cannot be seen as creating a privileged class in the society as it would amount to abdication of the very principle of justice and equality enshrined in the Constitution."

> "Limited public resources cannot be deployed for display of eminence and as an attempt to bolster the ego of the recipient of such protection."

> "The security should be provided only to those who face real threat to their life for having done some work in the interest of the society or the nation from terrorist/naxalite or organized gangs and not otherwise."

Implications for Future Cases

By dismissing the petition, the Allahabad High Court has set a clear precedent: individuals cannot use the judicial process to secure state protection without demonstrating an objective, imminent, and real threat. The ruling reinforces the principle that police resources are for the protection of society, not for the fortification of private status. Future petitioners seeking similar relief will now face an uphill battle to prove that their threat is not merely "perceptive apprehension," but an actionable danger requiring the intervention of armed forces.