Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
WASIM SADIQ NARGAL
Sumit Nayyar S/o Sh. Sunil Nayyar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary Home Departm – Respondent
ORDER :
01. The petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate in this Court had filed the instant petition way back in the year, 2017 praying for the following relief:-
“a) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to not to withdraw and restore the security/PSO provided to the petitioner in view threat perception to the petitioner as per the field report of the Senior Superintendent of Police (CID) Special Branch (SB) Jammu dated 22.03.2016 and also as per the verification got conducted by the respondent No. 3 at their own level.”
02. The ground on which the protection was sought, is that the petitioner had filed various Public Interest Litigations in this Court, pertaining to the OFH JAIMGMHU C&O KAUSRHTMIR AND LADAKH security of Hon’ble Retired Judges and the Court complexes and on that basis, the petitioner apprehends threat to his life and has relied upon the report dated 22.03.2016 from SSP, (CID) Special Branch (SB) and Additional Director General of Police, CID, J&K mentioning therein that there may be a threat to his life.
03. In the aforesaid backdrop, vide order dated 08.04.2017, the petitioner was provided one PSO f
The court ruled that threat assessments are specialized functions of security agencies, and courts should refrain from intervening unless clear evidence of error is presented.
The court affirmed that the assessment of personal security needs is a factual matter for authorities, rejecting claims based on perceived threats and discouraging the creation of a privileged class ....
Security provision is contingent on current threat assessments, which must be evaluated by the Security Review Committee, and not guaranteed based on past positions.
Security assessments for political leaders fall within the jurisdiction of designated security agencies, and courts cannot intervene unless there is a clear failure to act.
Profession - Refusal to provide petitioner personal security - High court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Art 226 of Constitution, cannot substitute its decision to decision of competent Aut....
Assessment of real threat perception and granting security at the state's cost only in compelling cases linked to public or national service.
Article 21 protects against state action but does not guarantee police protection to individuals whose threat perceptions arise from their own criminal activities.
A person with a criminal background cannot claim state-funded police protection when threats arise from their own activities, as this contradicts public morality.
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
