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 funded by taxpayer resources.

JUDGMENT :

Sudhanshu Chauhan, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking a direction for the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to immediately provide armed Central Security Force Protection (CRPF) to the petitioners in the light of the grave and persistent threat to the lives of the petitioners.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that three FIRs have been lodged by the petitioners, the first FIR bearing Case Crime No. 185 of 2020 in respect of breaking of boundary wall and labour quarters in the brick-kiln of the petitioners, the second FIR bearing Case Crime No. 700 of 2020 relating to a false trust/deed (as alleged in the writ petition) and the third FIR bearing Case Crime No. 173 of 2023 relating to hacking of the mobile phone of the petitioners. Under the circumstances, it is contended that the petitioners are facing an imminent threat to their lives and as such they are seeking protection.

4. However, the perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition do not disclose a single specific instance on the basis of which it can be assumed that the petitioners have any threat to their lives. Further, other than the persons who have been named in the FIRs lodged at the instance of the petitioners, not a single person has been named including those named in the FIRs in the writ petition who has hurled any life threat to the petitioners or their family members. It is also duly admitted that vide order dated 06.08.2023, the petitioners have been granted police protection by providing one security guard. Hence, it is evident that the petitioners have already been provided police protection keeping in view the threat perception as assessed by the competent authority.

5. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the law laid down in this regard, it can very well be held that the nature of threat perception and the liability to provide security has to be left to be decided by the authorities concerned, since this is clearly a question of fact to be dealt with by the authorities entrusted with the duty and not for this Court to determine while exercising it's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, we find that the provision for security in the shape of police personnel has become more of a status symbol by means of which, a privileged class has been created at the expense of the State and the taxpayers’ money.

6. In a country governed by the rule of law and democratic polity, a class of privileged persons should not be created by the State. Our country has got a written Constitution and as per the preamble, the goal of the Indian Democratic Republic is to secure justice to all citizens, socially, economically and politically, and equality of status and of opportunity to all. The State cannot be seen as creating a privileged class in the society as it would amount abdication of the very principle of justice and equality enshrined in the Constitution. There may be cases where public interest demand to provide personal security but same should be done in a transparent and fair manner and the State should be able to justify it's decision if, the same is challenged in the Court of law.

7. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramveer Upadhyay Vs. R.M. Srivastava and others , 2015 (13) SCC 370 arising out of a case where Z category security of a Minister in the State of U.P. had been downgraded after