Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
P.M. Rajendran - Appellant
Versus
The Superintendent of Police, The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai - Respondent
W.P.(MD) No. 19499 of 2019 & W.M.P(MD). Nos. 15937, 15938 & 15939 of 2019
Decided On : 14-09-2022
Security - Petition - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Na.Ka.No.G/Escort Charges/2019 - The court discussed the withdrawal of security provided to the petitioner, the demand for payment of arrears, and the petitioner's inability to pay. The court directed the respondent to follow up with the State Security Committee on the free security and to take a final decision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Joint Organiser of a political party, sought security due to potential life threat faced by him and his family. The security was provided but later withdrawn by the respondent, citing non-payment of arrears. The petitioner expressed inability to pay the demanded amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondent to follow up with the State Security Committee on the free security and to take a final decision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Issues: Withdrawal of security, demand for payment of arrears, petitioner's inability to pay, and the need for continued security due to potential life threat.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the petitioner's inability to pay the demanded amount and directed the respondent to explore the possibility of providing free security based on the threat perspective faced by the petitioner and his family.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to follow up with the State Security Committee on the free security and to take a final decision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition - filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records culminating into the order dated 08.07.2019 in Na.Ka.No.G/Escort Charges/2019 passed by the respondent quashing the same and directing the respondent to provide gunman security to the petitioner and his family.)
1. This writ petition was filed challenging the impugned order of the respondent dated 08.07.2019 and for a consequential direction to provide security to the petitioner and his family due to potential life threat faced by them.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the Joint Organiser of a political party and he is also involved in public service. The petitioner faced life threat from anti-social elements and hence, he lodged a complaint in the year 2013 to the respondent requesting to provide security. No security was provided and the petitioner and his family were continuously under death threat. Ultimately, one more complaint was given in the year 2016 and on considering the same and also the fact that there was a threat faced by the petitioner and his family, the Protective Security Officer was provided.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, all of a sudden, the Security Officer was taken back by the respondent. Once again the petitioner made a representation on 28.02.2017 and a Security Officer with gun was provided to the petitioner from March-2017. This arrangement went on without any interruption till the year 2019.
4. During July 2019, the Security Officer was removed even without assigning any reason. The petitioner was directed to pay an exorbitant amount as arrears for the security already provided in order to continue the security. Aggrieved by the same, the order passed by the respondent, dated 08.07.2019 has been put to challenge before this Court.
5. When the matter came up for hearing on 24.01.2022, this Court passed the following order:
“This Writ Petition is filed challenging the withdrawal of gunman Security provided to the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner has failed to pay the charges to the tune of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen lakhs only) and he misused the protection given to him by taking the Escort to unauthorized places.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner seeks extension of protection, in view of the life threat.
3. From the counter, this Court understood that having sought for protection and agreed to pay Escort charges, the petitioner has not paid Escort charges which runs to Rs.16,00,000/-. Thereafter, after absconding report received from the Special Branch Inspector, the Superintendent of police has withdrawn the police protection and issued notice, which is now impugned in the writ petition.
4. If the petitioner is really interested in getting the extension of PSO protection, he is directed to deposit the arrears of Rs. 16,00,000/-(Rupees Sixteen Lakhs only) within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the request in the writ petition will be considered.
5. Post the matter after four weeks.”
6. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was never informed that providing security will involve so much of costs to the petitioner and if the petitioner had been informed about the same, even in the beginning, the petitioner would have insisted for providing a free Security Officer, since the petitioner cannot afford to pay so much of costs for security. He also submitted that since the petitioner does not have the financial wherewithal to pay the amount as demanded by the respondent, he was not in a position to comply with the order passed by this Court on 24.01.2022.
7. It was further submitted that the inability on the part of the petitioner to pay the amount, cannot be a ground to leave the petitioner and his family in lurch, mor
The court emphasized the need to consider the threat perspective faced by the petitioner and his family in determining the provision of security, especially when the petitioner expressed inability to....
Assessment of real threat perception and granting security at the state's cost only in compelling cases linked to public or national service.
Security should be provided free of cost in cases where there is a threat perception to a person.
The government has a duty to protect the life, liberty, and property of citizens, and rejections must be based on valid reasons and consideration of available materials.
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.
Security provision is contingent on current threat assessments, which must be evaluated by the Security Review Committee, and not guaranteed based on past positions.
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
