IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.
Rajat Kalsan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-23245-2018
Decided On : 17-10-2022
Security Cover - Threat Assessment - 2013(7) Scale 564, Abhishek Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others, Misc. Bench No.10867 of 2021, Jaskirat Singh Chahal Versus State of Punjab and others, LPA No.2165 of 2017 - The court dismissed the petition as there was no valid foundation to conclude that the assessment made by the Inspector General of Police, CID, Haryana in the year 2018 was without any valid basis or that there is a real threat exposure to the life and liberties of the petitioner. The petitioner has been misusing the security cover indulging in criminal acts showing abuse of State privilege. There is no evidence to necessitate restoration/extension of the security cover or that the decision taken by the authorities was in bad faith, malicious or mischievous or is not based on tangible, objective and bonafide assessment of intelligence input.
JUDGMENT
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. - The present writ petition has been filed invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court challenging the decision of the respondentauthorities withdrawing the personal security from the petitioner with a further prayer seeking issuance of directions to official respondents to restore the security cover and to provide the same by preferably deploying the Central Para-Military Forces.
2. Briefly summarized the facts of the instant case are that the petitioner, who is an Advocate by profession and is based in Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar claims to be working on the issues of 'Dalit Rights' for several years. He claims to represent Dalit victims of atrocities across Courts in Haryana as well as before this Court. It is claimed that the petitioner has been recommended and awarded for his strenuous efforts by several social Organizations. It is also claimed that the petitioner has been counsel for the Dalit victims in Mirchpur incident and has been representing Dalit victim in various other high profile matters such as Dabra Gang Rape Case, Jind Bania Khera Dalit student rape and murder case, Bhatla case, Kulana murder/suicide case, Dolatpur matter, Bagla Dalit Murder matter as well as other 150 matters requiring him to travel throughout the State. A list of cases in which the petitioner claims to be representing such victims has been appended along with the writ petition as Annexure P-1.
3. It is also stated in the writ petition that as a result of the activism of the petitioner, he has been receiving threats and has also been attacked several times by the members of the dominant community in Haryana. He claims to have also been attacked in the Court Complex at Hisar by the miscreants of the dominant community. He also claims to have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing IA No.11 of 2011 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.211 of 2010. The Govt. of Haryana had provided security to the petitioner along with other witnesses and a temporary police post was created outside his house. About six persons were deputed to guard the petitioner's house. Reference was made to an alleged incident of 2012 which was reported in the newspaper and another incident of 20.04.2014 in Sirsa where the petitioner claims to have been attacked and an FIR No.389 dated 21.04.2014 was registered under Sections 324, 341, 506, 307, 34 IPC at Police Station Sirsa City. No FIR in relation to the alleged incident of 2012 or any other incident prior , however, is placed on record despite allegations. It is also stated that the petitioner had received threats from one Dilawar Singh on his social media account on Facebook qua which a representation was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Hisar on 02.08.2016, however, no action was taken. The representations were thereafter also submitted to the National Commission for the Schedules Castes, New Delhi. However, instead of investigating the same, the security cover provided to the petitioner was also withdrawn by the respondent-State. The petitioner has also alleged that on 18.09.2016, the petitioner was manhandled by C. Pawan Kumar, driver of PCR No.HR-57-2369 and the said issue was also raised with senior officials of the Police Department, however, no action was taken thereon. The petitioner also submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Hisar on 22.09.2016 raising his grievances regarding withdrawal of the security cover and subjecting his family to an increased threat exposure and apprehension. He has alleged that after the withdrawal of the security cover, car of the petitioner was stolen and FIR No.710 dated 30.09.2016 was also registered in this regard. The petitioner also preferred CWP No.24244 of 2016 praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide security cover from the CRPF/CISF, wherein a specific response was
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.
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.
The court emphasized the need for a comprehensive threat assessment before withdrawing personal security, recognizing the dynamic nature of threats faced by individuals in political and business cont....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.