Court Directs MHA to Evaluate Ex-Legislator's Security Plea Amid Political Shifts

In a recent order, the Calcutta High Court has provided clarity on the procedural path for an individual seeking heightened security protection, balancing the domain of State responsibility under the Constitution with the right of citizens to approach the Central government. The decision, delivered by Justice Suvra Ghosh in the matter of Humayun Kabir vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (WPA 313 of 2026), addresses an ex-legislator's request for Z+ category security following his exit from the ruling political dispensation.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, a former member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, recently formed a new political party. Citing an apprehended threat to his life and property, Kabir petitioned the High Court for the deployment of specialized security personnel—specifically requesting "Z+ category" protection.

The State of West Bengal contested the necessity of additional intervention, citing that the petitioner is already being provided with two armed police constables for personal security by the Murshidabad district police. The State argued that the petitioner’s public programs were adequately covered and that no untoward incidents had occurred during his events.

Arguments on Jurisdiction

The core legal question revolved around which authority is empowered to grant security. Counsel for the Union of India clarified the constitutional standing of security arrangements:

> "Learned counsel for the Union of India submits that providing personal security is covered under Schedule 7 List 2 which is the domain of the State. However, the petitioner may approach the Ministry of Home Affairs with such request which may be considered by the latter."

The petitioner, while acknowledging the State’s existing arrangements, expressed concern regarding potential biases due to his new political alignment. Consequently, he sought liberty to present a formal request to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), the 4th respondent in the case, provided that he covers the requisite costs for such protection.

Legal Analysis and Court Findings

The High Court refrained from adjudicating on the merits of the necessity for Z+ security. Instead, it focused on the administrative remedy available to the petitioner. By maintaining the distinction of jurisdiction under Schedule 7, List 2, the Court affirmed that the security of citizens primarily rests with the State, but noted that a constitutional right to submit representations to the Union level must be upheld.

The Court’s ruling emphasizes that the MHA has the authority to assess the circumstances presented by an individual. By granting the petitioner leave to submit a "comprehensive representation," the Court has institutionalized a process that allows for an independent assessment of security risks.

Key Observations

The judgment features several critical directives regarding the handling of security applications:

• On existing security measures: "It appears from the report submitted by the State that the petitioner has been granted adequate and large scale police deployment by the district police for the programmes conducted by him and no untoward incident has occurred therein."
• On the duty of the 4th Respondent: "The petitioner is at liberty to submit a comprehensive representation before the 4th respondent demonstrating the circumstances under which he requires deployment of police personnel for security and protection."
• On Administrative Timelines: "On receipt of such representation, the 4th respondent shall deal with the same in the light of the facts and circumstances stated therein and take necessary steps in accordance with law, preferably within two weeks."

Decision and Implications

The Calcutta High Court disposed of the writ petition with a clear directive, ordering the Ministry of Home Affairs to process the petitioner's forthcoming application within two weeks.

This ruling serves as a vital precedent for political leaders and public figures seeking central security interventions. It reinforces the principle that while state governments maintain primary administrative control over law and order (under Schedule 7), the Union government retains the mandate to review applications for protection on their individual merits. The decision guarantees a window for administrative review, ensuring that security concerns are not dismissed without formal consideration by the competent authority.