Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RITU RAJ AWASTHI, DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JJ.
Abhishek Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Ors. – Respondents
Misc. Bench No. 10867 of 2021
Decided on : 04-08-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Petitioner requested for providing him security was that he had been appearing in several public interest litigation of general public importance and, he had to travel to naxalite and dacoit affected areas for legal/judicial work and, for that purpose, there is persistent threat to his life. However, Commissionerate Level Security Committee stated that there was no threat perception to petitioner by a particular person or he was having any enmity with any particular person. He had not lodged any FIR or complaint against any particular person, threatening him of his life and property in District Lucknow and, there was no real threat to him as such.
Finding of the Court:
As a matter of principle, private individuals should not be given security at State cost unless there are compelling transparent reasons, which warrant such protection, especially if threat is linked to some public or national service they have rendered and, security should be granted to such persons until threat abates. But, if threat perception is not real, it would not be proper for Government to grant security at cost of taxpayers money and to create a privileged class. It is evident that petitioner does not face any real threat to his life or property. He has been asking for security as authority of symbol to flaunt his status a VIP. This practice, creating a privileged class on State expense and taxpayers money, is to be deprecated. It is provided that threat perception has to be real and the Security Committee has to assess the threat perception, taking into consideration reports from Intelligence Unit, concerned police station and past record of applicant. The security should be provided only to those who face real threat to their life for having done some work in interest of society or nation from terrorist/naxalite or organized gangs and not otherwise. A personal enmity with other would not come within the parameters for assessing the threat perception of the applicant for providing him security.
Result: Writ petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
D.K. Singh, J.
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, impugning the order dated 27th April, 2021, wherein the decision of the High Level Committee dated 16th April, 2021 regarding refusal to provide the petitioner personal security was communicated to the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow and vide communication dated 5th May, 2021 the said decision was communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be a practicing lawyer of District Lucknow, conducting mostly criminals as well as public interest litigation cases. It is stated that due to nature of work being performed by the petitioner, he receives continuous threats to his life and property.
2. Initially, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 19th December, 2020 to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, for providing him personal security. A report, regarding threat perception to the petitioner, was called upon from the Commissionerate Security Committee, Lucknow for consideration by the State Level Security Committee. The Joint Secretary, Home, on the basis of the recommendation of the Commissionerate Security Committee, Lucknow vide letter dated 19th December, 2020, ordered for providing one gunner on State expenses as personal security to the petitioner as an interim measure in anticipation of decision taken by the State Level Security Committee.
3. The aforesaid decision dated 19th December, 2020 for providing personal security to the petitioner, as an interim measure, for six months, provided that the report/recommendation in the prescribed format should be provided by the Commissionerate Security Committee, Lucknow regarding real threat perception to life of the petitioner for consideration by the State Level Security Committee. The Commissionerate Security Committee, Lucknow, after two months i.e. on 13th February, 2021 re-assessed the threat perception to life of the petitioner in light of Government Orders dated 9th May, 2014 and 10th July, 2020 and, it was found that there was no threat perception to life of the petitioner. The report/recommendation was submitted to the State Government on the aforesaid subject matter.
4. The State Level Security Committee, in its meeting dated 17th February, 2021, considered the case of the petitioner along with others and, took decision to continue with the interim security provided to the petitioner for six months vide letter dated 19th December, 2020. However, from perusal of the decision taken in the meeting dated 17th February, 2021, it appears that the report/recommendation of the Commissionerate Security Committee, Lucknow dated 13th February, 2021 was not taken into consideration and, the decision was purely based on the letter dated 19th December, 2020 issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh. In pursuance of the recommendation dated 17th February, 2021, consequential order dated 12th March, 2021 was issued by the State Government, extending personal security of one police personnel for six months to the petitioner. The State Level Security Committee, in its meeting dated 16th April, 2021, considered the recommendations of the several District Level Committees as well as the recommendations of the Commissionerate Security Committee, Lucknow and, threat perception of 188 citizens residing in the State was considered by the High Level Committee. The petitioner’s name finds place at serial no. 102.
5. This Court, vide order dated 22nd July, 2021 requisitioned the recommendation/decision of the High Level Committee for providing/not providing personal security to persons, whose cases were considered on the basis of the recommendation of the District/Divisional Level Security Committees.
6. In respect of the petitioner, his profession is mentioned as Advocate, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow and, his yearly income is Rs. 4,50,000/-. It is mentioned in the minutes of the meeting that Commissionerate Security Committee, Lucknow
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.
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 assessments for political leaders fall within the jurisdiction of designated security agencies, and courts cannot intervene unless there is a clear failure to act.
Assessment of real threat perception and granting security at the state's cost only in compelling cases linked to public or national service.
The decision of the State agency regarding special security is based on subjective satisfaction and is not subject to judicial review unless it is unreasonable according to the Wednesbury principle.
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
