To Avail the Benefit of Personal Security, Threat Perception Must be real
![To Avail the Benefit of Personal Security, Threat Perception Must be real](https://lawwallet.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/personal-safety-and-security-1040x555-1-1024x546.jpg)
Table of Content:
- Background of the case
- Issues Raised
- Statutory Provisions Involved
- Submissions of the parties
- Judgment analysis
- Case Laws:
- Nutan Thakur vs. the State of U.P
- A. Khan Chaman vs. State of U.P.
- A. Khan Chaman vs. State of U.P.
- Hazi Rais vs. State of U.P.
- Ramveer Upadhyay vs. R.M. Srivastava
- Randeep Singh Surjewala vs. Union of India
Abhishek Tiwari vs State of U.P. [Misc. Bench No. 10867/ 2021]
Background of the case
The petitioner of the present case is a practicing lawyer in Lucknow who’s generally engaged in criminal matters and public interest litigation cases. The petitioner alleged that due to the nature of his work he is receiving continuous threats to his life and property. On 19th December 2020, the petitioner submitted a representation to the additional chief secretary asking for personal security. The matter was forwarded to the Commissionerate Security Committee, Lucknow for the consideration of the state level security committee. On the basis of the recommendation given by the committee, an order was passed to appoint one gunner at the state’s expense in order to provide personal security to the petitioner for the period of six months. This order is an interim relief provided until the State Level Security announced their decision.
After 2 months the Commissionerate Security Committee reassessed the representation of the petitioner in light of government orders vide dated 9th May 2014 and 10th July 2020 and it was found that there is no real threat perception facing by the petitioner.
The state-level security committee on 17th February 2021consider the case and held that the interim relief which was provided to the petitioner for six months will be continued till the said period. On 12th March 2021, the State Government of U.P. extended the period of security to another six months which was given by police personnel. Later on 16th April 2021, High level security committee takes the recommendation given by various district level committees and the Commissionerate Security Committee into consideration and decided to stop providing the security to the petitioner as in the list 188 citizens who are suffering threat perception the petitioner’s name is on 102.
Against the decision of High level security committee, the petitioner filed the present before the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the constitution.
Issues Raised
- Whether personal security would be provided to an individual who in relating doesn’t have a death threat?
- Whether the decision of High Level Security Committee for not providing security is justifiable?
Statutory Provisions involved
- Article 21 of the constitution
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
- Article 226 of the Constitution
“Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
- Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto, and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority, or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
- Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ), without
- Furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
- giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favor such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated
- The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of Article 32.”
Submissions of the parties
The contentions of the petitioner
Learned Counsel Mr. A.M. Triphathi submitted the following on behalf of the petitioner:-
- The decision of the High Level Security Committee to withdraw the security provided to the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal accompanied by mala fide intentions because the petitioner used to practice in criminal matters and public interest litigation against the state.
- It was urged that the decision of the High level Security Committee passed by the impugned order liable to be quashed and the security provided to him must be restored.
The contention of the Respondent
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Mr. Amitabh Rai submitted the following on behalf of the respondent state:-
- By referring to the judgment of Dr. Nutan Thakur vs. the State of U.P, it was pointed out that this court itself provided that the state government took policy decision for providing personal security to private persons and V.I.Ps.
- It was argued that the petitioner had concealed some material facts from this court that one security personnel has been appointed for him and the same was not denied by the petitioner in his counter affidavit.
- It was added that if the contention of the petitioner has been accepted then every advocate who is practicing on the criminal side demands security as there is no real threat perception shown.
- It was argued that the present petitions lack on merits and are liable to be dismissed.
- It was argued that a person or political personality cannot demand protection if they have a threat perception from their rivals due to private reasons.
- A reference was given to the judgment of M.A. Khan Chaman vs. State of U.P. in which it was held that the security can be provided to the person if there is threat perception to him or his family members.
- By relying upon the judgment of Hazi Rais vs. State of U.P. and others it was argued that though it is the duty of the state to provide security ton life liberty and property of every citizen it is misused as a social state by such person.
- Further, reliance was given to the judgment of Ramveer Upadhyay vs. R.M. Srivastava where it was held that in the eye of law everyone is equal and there is no difference between a minister and a common person for the ‘Z’ security under Article 21 of the constitution.
Judgment Analysis
The decision of the court while exercising under Article 226 of the Constitution can be treated as a substitute with the decision of the competent authority in respect of threat perception. The court refers to the judgment of Randeep Singh Surjewala vs. Union of India in which it was held that where the court excludes the name of the applicant as it seems there is no threat perception to him.
Reliance was also given to the ruling of Ramveer Upadhyay vs. R.M. Srivastava where it was held that the security could not be provided for a mere status to the Politian or any holder of the parties until and unless there is real threat perception. The court by taking all the facts into consideration observed that the petitioner doesn’t have a threat perception in reality. Further, it was added in the opinion of the court the petitioner seeks personal security only to flaunt his status as VIP. The court added that personal security is provided to a private person if it is proved that there is genuine threat perception to such an individual. In the present petition, the court is of opinion that the petitioner does not receive any threat perception in real and the court upheld the decision of the High Level Security Committee.