Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
Jatin Mali – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 1125 of 2017
Decided On : 03-06-2019
Security - Threat Perception - Assam Security and Intelligence Branch Act, 2007 - Section 3, Section 4 - The court discussed the threat perception against the petitioner and the withdrawal of security provided to him. It referred to the Assam Security and Intelligence Branch Act, 2007, particularly Section 3 and Section 4, which outline the provisions for security arrangements and threat assessment. The court emphasized the importance of threat assessment reports and the authority of the police and state government in determining security provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former MLA and Minister, sought the reinstatement of security guards due to threat perception against him. The state had withdrawn his security following a criminal case registered against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the threat assessment report stated no specific threat against the petitioner and upheld the decision to provide him with one PSO based on the guidelines and decisions of the State Security Review Committee.
Issues: The main issue was the withdrawal of security from the petitioner and his entitlement to security arrangements as a former MLA and Minister.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that determining threat perception and security provisions is the responsibility of the police and state government, and the petitioner could seek a fresh threat assessment if he perceives a new threat.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, affirming the decision to provide the petitioner with one PSO and allowing him to approach the authorities for a fresh threat assessment if needed.
JUDGMENT :
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sk. S.N. Mohammad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Mozumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam.
2. The present matter relates to providing security guards to the petitioner, considering the threat perception against the petitioner.
3. The petitioners counsel submits that the petitioner is a 4 (four) time MLA and was also an Ex-Minister. He submits that the petitioner had initially been given two PSOs and four House Guards while he was a Minister in the Government of Assam. However, after he lost the last Assembly Election in the year 2016, all his PSOs and House Guards were withdrawn. He submits that the withdrawal of the security provided to the petitioner has exposed the petitioner to immense danger to his life and liberty. He also submits that in pursuance to an interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner has now been provided with one PSO. He submits that being a four time MLA and a two time Minister in the Government of Assam, the petitioner is entitled to the earlier security arrangement provided to him.
4. Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the PSOs and House Guards had been withdrawn from the petitioner on 21.09.2016, in view of the fact that he is no longer an MLA and a criminal case had been registered against the petitioner, i.e. Jalukbari P.S Case No. 748/2016 under Section 306 IPC. He also submits that charge sheet has been filed in the above case on 31.12.2016 and the case is still pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati.
5. The learned Addl. Advocate General also submits that a fresh threat assessment exercise, regarding the threat perception of the petitioner, was undertaken pursuant to the Order dated 10.08.2017 passed by this Court. In the Threat Assessment Report, it is stated that "since there is no specific threat at present from any corner, PSO may not be recommended." The same was signed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Security & Intelligence). Thereafter, the final decision was taken by the Commissioner of Police, Guwahati, which is to the following effect:-
"No specific threat in Guwahati, he stays in Kamrup (Rural) District. A case against him was charge-sheeted in Jalukbari Police Station. No PSO recommended."
6. The Addl. Advocate General also submits that as per the minutes of the State Security Review Committee (SSRC), meeting held on 09.06.2011, which was chaired by the Secretary, Home & Political Department to the Government of Assam, it was decided at Serial Nos. 3 & 4 as follows:-
"3. All the MsLA will be provided with 3 (three) PSOs each.
4. All the Ex-MsLA of the last outgoing Assembly will be provided with 1 (one) PSO except the cases where specific threat is reported."
7. The Addl. Advocate General submits that that the petitioner is accordingly entitled to one PSO. He further submits that there is no threat perception to the petitioner, as per the threat assessment report made in compliance with the order passed by this Court and as the petitioner has been provided with one PSO, the writ petition should be dismissed. He also submits that if the petitioner apprehends a fresh threat perception to his life and liberty, he is at liberty to file a fresh application to the Government, who shall conduct a fresh threat assessment exercise in respect of the apprehended danger faced by the petitioner.
8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
9. The additional affidavit filed by the State respondents in WP (C) No. 6231/2012 contains the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to be followed by the respondents in cases of threat assessment in respect of a person. It is also seen that the State respondents have conducted a Threat Assessment Report dated 31.08.2017 in respect of the petitioner in pursuance to the Order dated 10.08.2017 passed by this Court, wherein it has been stated that there is no specific threat against the petitioner and accordingly no PSO is
AI
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
