Back
2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 8354
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.M.JOSEPH, K.HARILAL, JJ
CHANDRA BABU R – Appellant
Versus
ANEESH Advocate - C RAJENDRAN, ,C RAJENDRAN,R S SREEVIDYA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 11885/2012
Authorities have a legal obligation to ensure police protection when threats to life are reported.
Headnote:
Protection - Police Protection - Writ of Mandamus - Summary of Court's Decision: Court emphasized the duty of police to provide protection under relevant laws, directing adequate measures by authorities upon threat.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, former members of BJP and current members of Siva Sena, sought police protection following a violent incident involving members of BJP after their resignation.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the respondents pledged no intention to harm the petitioners and directed the police to ensure adequate protection if threats arose.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to police protection after alleged threats from former party members.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that under relevant legal principles, adequate police protection must be provided to individuals facing threats.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of with an order for protection.
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J The petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 6 & 7 to give adequate, effective and meaningful police protection to the life of the petitioners.
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is as follows:
The petitioners 1, 3 and 5 were the active members of BJP for the last several years and the petitioners 2 and 4 are the members of Sive Sena. The 5th respondent is the son of the 3rd respondent and respondents 1 to 5 are the active members of the BJP.
Due to the ill treatment of the top leaders of the BJP the petitioners 1, 3 and 5 resigned from BJP and joined in Siva Sena recently. Due to the said enmity the respondents 1 to 5 and their subordinates joined together on 13.5.2012 with deadly weapons and made an attempt to kill the petitioners. The petitioners filed a complaint.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 and the learned Government Pleader.
The learned counsel for the party respondents would submit that they have no intention to cause any threat to the life of the petitioners. We direct that in case contrary to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents if there is any threat and it is brought to the notice of the 7th respondent and the 7th respondent will look into the complaint and afford adequate protection to the life of the petitioners as against respondents 1 to 5.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE K.HARILAL, JUDGE ab
