Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN
Vikas Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
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
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 ....
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....
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 ruled that threat assessments are specialized functions of security agencies, and courts should refrain from intervening unless clear evidence of error is presented.
Police protection is not a right for individuals involved in personal disputes and should be based on genuine threat assessments.
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.
The assessment of special security need and the decision to provide or withdraw it lies with the state, based on administrative discretion and can only be challenged on the grounds of Wednesbury unre....
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
