Back
2004 Supreme(All) 852
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Tarun Chatterjee, CJ., Bhanwar Singh, J.
Ramvir Upadhyay
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh
Writ Petition 5822 of 2003
Decided On : 30 April 2004
Writ Petition 5822 Of 2003
S.C.Mishra, S.S.CHAUHAN,
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to issue writs of mandamus in genuine cases where there is an imminent threat to an individual's life, emphasizing the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the state's obligation to protect its citizens' lives and properties.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Security Provision - [Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly Member] - [Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Writ Petition No. 23769 of 1995, Writ Petition No. 44316 of 1997, Ram Asrey Singh v. State of U. P., Rai Sing v. State of U. P., Rakesh Srivatava v. Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, Pramod Tiwari v. State of U. P.] - The court discussed the legal framework surrounding the provision of security to individuals, emphasizing the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It highlighted the court's authority to issue writs of mandamus in genuine cases where there is an imminent threat to an individual's life, and the state's obligation to protect its citizens' lives and properties. The judgment referenced several cases where the court intervened to ensure security provision, emphasizing the need for an objective assessment of threat perception and the duty of the state to review security measures. The court's decision reaffirmed its authority to protect citizens' fundamental rights and intervene in matters of security provision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an ex-Cabinet Minister and Member of Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh, sought mandamus to provide z+ security and restrain the withdrawal of y scale security until z security is provided. The petitioner faced persistent threat perception and past attempts on his life, and despite numerous requests, the state government had only provided y category security. The petitioner's life had been under constant danger due to political rivalry and criminal threats.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's life was under imminent threat and emphasized the state's obligation to protect its citizens' lives. It reaffirmed the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and intervened to ensure security provision in genuine and deserving cases.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's persistent threat perception and the state's refusal to provide adequate security despite past attempts on the petitioner's life. The court also addressed the jurisdiction of the court to intervene in matters of security provision and the state's obligation to protect its citizens' lives.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. It emphasized the court's authority to issue writs of mandamus in genuine cases where there is an imminent threat to an individual's life and the state's obligation to protect its citizens' lives and properties.
Final Decision: The court issued a writ of mandamus, emphasizing the state's duty to provide security to individuals facing imminent threat to their lives. It reaffirmed its authority to protect citizens' fundamental rights and intervene in matters of security provision.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving raise to this writ application may be recapitulated as below:-
( 3 ) THE petitioner is a sitting M. L. A. from Bahujan Samajwadi party having contested and won the election from Hathras assembly Constituency of the then District Mahamaya Nagar, which has recently been abolished and merged in the district of aligarh. In May, 2002, he was sworn in as a Cabinet Minister with the portfolio of power and Energy. Looking to the persisting threat perception and several past attempts made on his life, he has been continuously demanding for the z category protection but the state Government in the year 2002 had taken a decision to provide to him in his individual capacity the y category security only.
( 4 ) THE Government reiterated the above decision, while issuing the Order dated 26th February, 2003, in which seven persons including the petitioner were placed in y category. However, while pressing his need for z category, the petitioner wrote letters to the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime minister and also the Chief Minister of the State. The Prime minister and the Deputy Prime Minister both acknowledged his letters and assured an early action in the matter. The petitioners request was referred to the concerned authorities but without bearing any result. Even the reminders did not bring any fruits. In the meantime, the petitioner ceased to be a Minister following the change of the Government and since he did not succumb to the pressure to leave Bahujan Samaj Party with a view to join another political party, he was conveyed rather threatened of his security being withdrawn. The petitioner, however, could not reconcile with the Governments proposed decision that the threat to his life which he apprehended so long as he was Minister has now withered away. As a matter of fact, it was the discriminatory attitude of the authorities while proceeding to withdraw the y category security. The Government is legally bound to provide adequate securities to all its citizens - of course, keeping in view the danger to their lives. The petitioner being a political person having numerous arch rivals is under constant danger to his life.
( 5 ) IN the year 1993, when he contested election from hathras constituency, the opposition candidate Shri Rajvir Singh Pahalwan having a criminal record won the seat. The petitioner feared a life threat from the said opponent. Therefore, he informed the then government of his apprehension and after formal enquiry, the intelligence Report revealed that indeed there was danger to the life of the petitioner and his family.
( 6 ) THE petitioner is a Lawyer by profession and he has been practicing law in District Courts of Ghaziabad. During the election of 1993, he was provided with the security of five Constables besides one Sub-Inspector. During elections, on 27th November, 1993, the petitioner was attacked before counting of votes. Although he survived the attack yet one of his relatives, namely, gopal Sharma died and an another supporter suffered serious injuries with amputation of his left hand. An F. I. R. was lodged at the Hathras Police Station and the culprits were charge-sheeted by the police. Amongst those who were charge-sheeted were Brijendra (Bhura) and the opposition candidate, who eventually won the election. Following this occurrence, the petitioner was provided with two Gunners on the Government cost.
( 7 ) ANOTHER attempt on his life was made on 3rd September, 1994 when the petitioner was busy with his political activitie
