Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.S.Sundar, N.Senthilkumar
N.T.Stalin Barathi – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's background and request for protection. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's analysis on criminal background and police protection. (Para 4 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. arguments regarding threat perception and previous protection. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 4. conclusion on dismissal of the petition. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
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 2nd 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
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 should be provided free of cost in cases where there is a threat perception to a person.
Police protection is not a right for individuals involved in personal disputes and should be based on genuine threat assessments.
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....
Security provision is contingent on current threat assessments, which must be evaluated by the Security Review Committee, and not guaranteed based on past positions.
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 ....
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
