Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sunil B.Shukre, Avinash G.Gharote, JJ.
Shri Jamal S/o Anwar Siddiqui - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 107/2020
Decided On : 05-02-2021
Mandamus - Security - Article 226 - Wednesbury unreasonableness
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a National President of BJP Minority Morcha, sought 'X' category security, claiming constant threat to his life and property. The security was earlier granted but later withdrawn by the Intelligence Committee due to changed circumstances reducing the perceived threat. The petitioner challenged the withdrawal, claiming political reasons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the withdrawal of 'X' category security was based on the subjective satisfaction of the Intelligence Committee, following appropriate procedure. The court emphasized that the perception of threat by the State agency is crucial, not the individual's perception. The petitioner was provided with a Gun-man for security, based on the State's objective assessment of the threat.
Issues: The main issue was the withdrawal of 'X' category security and the petitioner's claim of constant threat due to his political position.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decision of the State agency to provide or withdraw special security is based on subjective satisfaction and is not subject to judicial review unless it is unreasonable according to the Wednesbury principle. The individual's perception of threat is not determinative.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, ruling that the withdrawal of 'X' category security was justified, and the petitioner's claim lacked merit.
JUDGMENT
SUNIL B.SHUKRE,J. - Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondents to provide him or continue to provide him 'X ' - category security category security. The petition is opposed by the respondents.
4. We may state here that in a democracy like India, having a written Constitution for the governance of the Country where rule of law pervades all through out, the State has been entrusted with the duty and responsibility to protect life and property of its citizen and this duty is and continues to be performed by the State through various laws it has enacted or may enact in future, taking of different measures and setting up various protection forces. There are police stations established all over. There is also established a Reserve Police Force and generally speaking, the police machinery also resorts to such steps as police patrolling, providing of temporary police force where the trouble is anticipated, providing of night guards and so on forth. Even, such steps as externing criminals from particular areas and initiating preventive detention action against the hardened criminals are also taken. These are all the steps and measures taken for ensuring safety of citizens of India and their property. Therefore, if any person is desirous of security over and above the ordinary ring of protection already thrown around by the State which is seen in the enacted laws and various steps just pointed out, there must be some special reason or material to show that such additional and special security is indeed justified. After all, when any special or additional security has to be provided, the State does so by incurring huge expenditure of public money. Then, there are also dangers involved in providing of such special security. One of them could be of any possible misuse of the special security by the person to whom it is provided. This is the reason why there is a well established procedure which must be followed before any decision is taken for providing special or additional security to a person. Such special security would not come as a matter of right and matter of course, rather it would follow the special need of the person and peculiar urgency of the situation.
5. Special need of the person and peculiar urgency of the situation are the factors which cannot be decided by a person who is demanding a special security. These factors are required to be examined and dealt with appropriately in a dispassionate manner by the State by following procedure established by rules. The reason being that right to lead secured life is a right which extends to secure conditions of life as understood in the context of general measures of security initiated by the State. So, the corresponding duty of the State is only up to the level of providing adequate measures of security in general. The right to lead a secured life would never include in it any right to lead a specially secured life, unless the special need is assessed and acknowledged by the State. Therefore, it is the assessment of the State alone, and not of an individual demanding special security, which is material. A person demanding special security, may, for his own reasons see that there is a threat to his life or property or both from the world at large and therefore may lead his life constantly under fear. But, such opinion of a person about danger to his own life or property, in a given case, may only be a figment of imagination or due to some peculiar psychology of that person. But, in reality, the agency entrusted with duty to protect a citizen, may find that the own threat perception of such a person is illusory or unrealistic or blown out of proportion. Therefore, the agency of the State which is under a duty to protect its citizen is required to discharge it's duty in such a case cautiously, careful
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
