Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : BILAL NAZKI
Katasani Rami Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 04-02-98
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 - Constitution of india,1950 - ASrticle 226 - Offence of Murder - To provide Armed escort on payment of usual charges and on usual terms and conditions - Seeking a direction against respondents to provide Armed escort on payment of usual charges and on usual terms and conditions to petitioner on ground that there is threat to his life - Petitioner has stated in his writ petition that there is some rivalry going on between two political parties for a long time - He submits that on his father as well as his six cousins were killed - He further states that his brother was murdered - He attributes all these murders to one - He submits that there is rivalry between him and - They belong to different parties - One of brothers of petitioner is an MLA representing congress party - Petitioner had filed earlier a writ petition being for police protection and Court had directed concerned officers to consider representation made by petitioner - It appears that he was given police escort from June till end of September - This petition was filed on eve of general elections to Lok Sabha which have now been concluded - Petitioner had stated that because of elections he had to support a political party and therefore his threat perception had increased - "Should this Court exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and compel authorities to provide security to all persons who are either leading factions or actively participating in factions ? and that almost all of them are facing serious criminal charges and What are parameters of judicial review in such a situation ? Legality and validity of Government s policy decision withholding security to all these factionists also would fall for consideration - Can Court substitute its own view and declare policy of Government as illegal or unconstitutional ? Is it a judicially manageable situation where appropriate directions could be issued in each case compelling police to provide security? Should State be compelled to spend its limited resources to provide security to factionists and pass on liability to tax payers ? Can State provide services of an armed security guard to each citizen ? It is common knowledge and judicial notice can be taken about prevalent culture of factions in which had already destroyed peace and tranquility of common man who is constantly living under threat of fear - What security is to be provided to those innocent victims of faction violence and by whom?" - Questions whether security is to be provided to individual or not by State is dependent upon threat perception with regard to that individual and what is amount of threat and whether threat is real or imaginary and in case there is threat what is degree of threat to an individual s life cannot be considered either by this Court or by any other agency other than police force itself - Held, Principle lays down as under " Individual or individuals who apprehend threat to peace and to his or their lives can approach competent authority at first instance at district level and make application for deployment of special force for maintaining peace and for protection of his or their lives and liberty - On such application being made competent authority shall be duty bound to promptly make suitable orders without any delay - In case application is rejected by district authority applicant shall have right to make application before superior authority in hierarchy as indicated above last being before Government of State - Applicant/ applicants for such security or deployment of Special Police force shall however be responsible for cost as envisaged under Acts aforementioned and Government shall have no authority at all to make any expense upon such special force from and out of revenue of State - Court dispose of this writ petition with a direction to Superintendent of Police to decide application of petitioners in accordance with directions given by Division Bench and also in accordance with directions given by this Court hereinabove which are supplementary to directions of Division Bench within a period of two weeks - In meantime interim order shall remain operative till District Superintendent of Police decides representation of petitioner - Court would also like to direct State authorities that whenever an application is made by an individual for providing personal security that application must be decided within shortest possible time and if it is not possible then person must be provided security till application is decided because if authorities take time say of one week or two weeks to decide application - It might be too late in certain cases where even before Police decides on application threat may be carried - Writ Petition Disposed
( 1 ) RULE Nisi.
( 2 ) THE writ petition has been filed seeking a direction against respondents to provide Armed escort on payment of usual charges and on usual terms and conditions to the petitioner on the ground that there is threat to his life. The petitioner has stated in his writ petition that there is some rivalry going on between two political parties for a long time. He submits that on 27/05/1979 his father as well as his six cousins were killed. He further states that on 29/04/1986 his brother was murdered. He attributes all these murders to one Sri Bijjam Satyanarayan Reddy. He submits that there is rivalry between him and Sri Satyanarayana Reddy. they belong to different parties. One of the brothers of the petitioner is an MLA representing the congress party. The petitioner had filed earlier a writ petition being WP No. 24456/96 for police protection and the Court had directed the concerned officers to consider the representation made by the petitioner. It appears that he was given police escort from June, 1997 till end of September, 1997. This petition was filed on the eve of general elections to the 12th Lok Sabha which have now been concluded. The petitioner had stated that because of elections he had to support a political party and therefore his threat perception had increased.
( 3 ) THE Court while entertaining this petition had by interim order directed respondents to provide armed escort to the petitioner on payment of usual charges and in accordance with usual terms and conditions. The State has moved an application for vacation of the said order and filed counter. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Since the controversy is very short, with the concession of the parties the writ petition itself is being disposed by this Court.
( 4 ) THE respondents have stated in the counter that petitioner himself is a hardcore factionist. He has himself committed many offences and has committed many acts of violence and disturbed public order on several occasions. It has further been stated that criminal cases have been filed against him and a rowdy-sheet has also been opened relating to the petitioner in Owk P. S. vide RS No. 8/ KU. It is further submitted that although his brother is an MLA but it is not correct that because of petitioner supporting his brother he has earned enemies. They also admit that the rivalry between the petitioner group and some other group is age old and both have indulged in henious offences from time to time. It is submitted that the risk, if any, to the life of the petitioner is not result of any political activity but result of offences committed by him and the counter offences committed by the other group. A detailed account of offences in which the petitioner is involved has also been given. He appears to be involved even in crimes under Section 302 of IPC. It is further stated by learned Counsel for respondents that it is not possible for the State to provide gunman to each individual and when persons are provided gun man by the State the over all law and order situation becomes vulnerable because the man power available with the police is not as sufficient to provide personal security to each and every individual who seeks such a security. The Counsel for the parties have drawn my attention to a judgment of this Court which has been decided by Division Bench and reported in G. Subas Reddy v. State of A. P. , 1997 (2) ALD 694 (DB ). The facts in that case are almost similar to the present writ petition. The learned single Judge of this Court framed questions which were referred to Division Bench. The following question was before the Division Bench to be answered: "should this Court exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and compel the authorities to provide security to all the persons who are either leading factions or actively participating in the factions ? and that almost all of them are facing serious criminal
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
