Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, J.
Sumit Nayyar S/o Sh. Sunil Nayyar – Appellant
Versus
State of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner/Secretary Home Department, Civil – Respondent
OWP No. 989 of 2017 CM No. 4375 of 2024 IA No. 01/2017
Decided on : 13-03-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Security cover - The petitioner, a practicing Advocate, sought restoration of security due to perceived threats following his Public Interest Litigations regarding security for retired judges. The Court found no credible threat based on a recent assessment report. (Paras 1-24)
(B) Judicial Review - The Court emphasized that threat assessments are specialized functions of security agencies, and courts should not intervene unless clear evidence of error is presented. (Paras 15-21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed threats to his life due to his advocacy in public interest litigations, supported by a police report. Security was initially granted but later questioned.
Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the petitioner does not face any credible threat and thus does not require security.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the threat perception and the appropriateness of the Court's intervention in security matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that it lacks the expertise to assess individual threat perceptions and must defer to the assessments made by competent authorities.
Result: Petition dismissed.
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 for the period of one month and subsequently, vide order dated 15.05.2017 again, on the request of Senior Superintendent of Police, Dy. Superintendent of Police, DAR DPL, Jammu was asked to provide security to the petitioner, provisionally for a period of one month.
04. The record reveals that thereafter, the petitioner did not allow the competent authority to review threat perception but rushed to this Court seeking continuation of the security already provided to him, as if the Court has expertise and domain to provide security cover or could assess the threat perception to any person who is before the Court.
05. Record further reveals that the matter was listed before this Court on22.06.2017 when an interim protection was granted to the petitioner whereby the arrangement already made vide order dated 08.04.2017 and 15.05.2017 was directed to be continued. Thus, the petitioner anyway got final relief by way of an interim order.
06. It is very surprising that it took more than 03 years for the Government to file reply in the instant case, which was filed on 09.11.2020. Thus, there was a deliberate delay on the part of the respondents in filing the reply and also contesting the instant petition and this aspect of the matter also finds mention in the detailed order passed by this Court on 17.08.2020, which is reproduced per verbatim as under:
“1. The petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate in this Court, had filed the present petition way back in the year 2017, praying for the following relief:
"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 of threat perception to the petitioner as per the field report of the Senior Superintendent of Police [CID) Special Branch (SB)Jammu dated 22.3.2016 and also as per the verification got conducted by therespondent No. 3 at their own level."
2. The ground on which the protection was sought is that the petitioner had filed a Public Interest Litigation in this Court pertaining to security of the Hon'ble retired Judges and the Court complexes. On that basis, he apprehended threat to his life. He relied on the report dated22.03.2016 from Senior Superintendent of Police(CID) Special Branch (SB) to Additional Director General of Police, CID, J&K, mentioning therein that there may be threat to his life. On that basis, vide order dated 08.04.2017, the petitioner was provided one PSO for a period of one month. Subsequently, vide order dated 15.05.2017 again, on the request of Senior Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police, DARDPL, Jammu was asked to provide security to the petitioner provisionally for a period of one month. Thereafter, the petitioner did not allow the compe
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
