Article 21 protects against state action but does not guarantee police protection to individuals whose threat perceptions arise from their own criminal activities.

ORDER :

S.S.SUNDAR, N.SENTHILKUMAR, JJ.,

(1)This writ petition is filed seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 21.11.2023 and to give suitable directions to the respondents to provide Personal Security Officer to the petitioner at the cost of the State.

(2)The petitioner states that he is an Advocate and a council member of Communist Party of India at Needamangalam Taluk. The petitioner is married and gifted with two children. The petitioner also admits that his mother is a Panchayat Union Counsellor. It is the case of the petitioner that his father by name Thiru.Natesa Thamizarvan, was a member of Executive Committee and the Union Party Secretariat of CPI party. It is the case of the petitioner that his father was murdered on 10.11.2021 by a notorious rowdy by name Boovanur Rajkumar and his associates. It is his further case that he was also attacked at the inducement of the said Rajkumar and he narrowly escaped from the attempt. In view of the threat after the death of petitioner's father, the petitioner states that the District police provided police protection at the cost of State till March 2023. Subsequently, the said Rajkumar who was suspected as an accused in the murder of petitioner's father, was also murdered and the petitioner was also arrayed as an accused and arrested in the said murder case. Following this Personal Security Officer was withdrawn. Though the petitioner was detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, the order was later quashed/cancelled by this Court vide order dated 08.09.2023 in HCP.No.721/2023.

(3)The petitioner states that some persons who have prior enmity with the petitioner are targeting him. The petitioner, alleging that he faces imminent threat, submitted a representation to the 2^nd respondent for police protection. The request of the petitioner was turned down by the 2^nd respondent by the impugned order dated 21.11.2023. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.

(4)The fact that the petitioner was given personal security officer earlier at his request, is acknowledged in the impugned order of the 2^nd respondent. Since petitioner was involved in the murder of a person by name Rajkumar, the 2^nd respondent considering the fact that several criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner and the petitioner is a history sheeter as per the records maintained by Needamangalam Police Station from the year 2020, the request of the petitioner was rejected by the 2^nd respondent by assigning valid reasons.

(5)In the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted the following aspects:

(a)The petitioner is facing imminent threat from his potential enemies.

(b)The petitioner was provided with a Personal Security Officer after the death of his father and for no valid reasons, the Personal Security Officer was withdrawn.

(c)A complaint has been lodged when the petitioner was attacked after the death of petitioner's father and the 2^nd respondent failed to consider a few aspects which are relevant and germane to the request of the petitioner.

(d)Mere pendency of criminal cases involving the petitioner is not a valid reason to reject the request when potential threat to life and property of the petitioner is not disputed.

(6)A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit that 22 criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner for various offences. Even though in one case, the complaint was closed and at least in 9 cases, further action was droppe