The single judge bench of Justice Raj Mohan Singh of the Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of Om Prakash Soni vs state of Punjab and ors held that the Security issue is not a static phenomenon, rather it is a dynamic process. The security reviews have to be done on periodical basis by assessing the security threat of the protectees with the passage of time on the basis of official inputs provided by the different agencies including State and Central agencies.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the current writ petition is brought in respect of the respondent- State of Punjab's withdrawal, pruning, downgrading, and de-categorization of the protectees' security by common orders. The protectees have challenged the contested action of withdrawing and reclassifying their security cover, claiming that it violates natural justice principles, is opposed to State policy, and was carried out without providing them with a fair hearing. The contested action of withdrawal or de-categorization of security has been made public, exacerbating the threat perception of the protectees. The protectees have alleged that withdrawal and de-categorization of the security cover is a result of populist action being taken by the Government, instated of assessment of actual serious threats to the lives of the protectees. The protectees claim that the withdrawal and de-categorization of security cover is a result of the government's populist actions, rather than an assessment of any substantial risks to the protectee’s lives.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon'ble court after reviewing the minutes of the meeting with reference to the recommendations made by the Review Committee in respect of different protectees having different categories of security covers. The security issue is not a static phenomenon, rather it is a dynamic process. The security reviews have to be done on a periodical basis by assessing the security threat of the protectees with the passage of time on the basis of official inputs provided by the different agencies including State and Central agencies.
The hon'ble court further relied upon the judgments of the apex court titled Ramveer Upadhyay vs. R.M. Srivastava and others, in which it was stated that
“However, in our experience, we have hardly seen any security of 'Z' or 'Y' category provided to any ordinary citizen howsoever, grave the threat perception or imminent danger may be to the person concerned. The petitioner, however, has claimed it obviously as a 'privileged class' by virtue of being an ex-minister which at times, may be justified even to an exminister or any other dignitary, considering the nature and function of the duties which he had discharged, which could facilitate the assessment of his threat perception even after laying down the office. But what exactly is his threat perception and whether the same is grave in nature, obviously will have to be left to be decided by the authorities including the authorities of the State or the Centre which may include even the Intelligence Bureau or any other authority concerned which is entitled to assess the threat perception of an individual. But in so far as the Court of law is concerned, it would obviously be in a predicament to come to any conclusion as to whether the threat perception alleged by a person claiming security is grave or otherwise which would hold him entitled to the security of a greater degree, since this is clearly a question of factual nature to be dealt with by the authorities entrusted with the duty to provide security after assessing the need and genuineness of the threat to any individual.”
The court held that it is true that security is a state subject and the competent authority has to evaluate the threat, if any, faced or perceived by an individual/individuals and protectee(s). This exercise has to be left to the competent authority for making a lawful assessment of the threat on the basis of inputs to be provided by the State/Central agencies. The impugned action in withdrawing the security cover of the protectees in lots can be viewed from the view points of both parties. One thing is common that after the withdrawal of security cover by the State Security Review Committee on different occasions, the same has come under public domain and that fact has aggravated the perceived threat of the protectees. The issue of analysis may give rise to a very subjective notion. The protectee having a security cover on being subjected to the withdrawal of security cover may suffer at the hands of his enemies promptly or with the passage of time. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that in a given case, de- categorization of security may sometime prompt the inimical anti-social elements to take the drastic step to overcome the de- categorized security in order to attack the protectee. All these events are subjective in nature and no general opinion can be formed at this stage as the same is the State subject for which the competent authority is to form an opinion on the basis of different inputs.
In order to ward off the continued apprehension of the protectees in view of bringing the issue of withdrawal of security under the public domain, this Court is of the opinion that the competent authority should make a fresh assessment in respect of security threats of protectees after considering the available inputs from different agencies including State and Central agencies. The competent authority should also consider the inputs to be provided by the individuals/protectees by giving them adequate notice. The impression which has been given by bringing the impugned action under the public domain can only be cured by undertaking a fresh security review in accordance with law and that too by appreciating and considering various inputs of the State and Central agencies as well as the inputs to be provided by the individuals/protectees at the time of such assessment.
At last, the hon'ble court is of the considered opinion that the security covers of the protectees/individuals in the aforesaid bunch of writ petitions are analyzed afresh in terms of their threat perceptions on the parameters as laid down in the preceding part of the order and the existing security cover provided to the petitioner(s) /individuals/protectees even under the orders of the Court shall remain in force till fresh assessment is made by the competent authority.
CASE NAME- Om Prakash Soni vs state of Punjab and ors
CITATION- CWP No.11872 of 2022
DATED- 22.08.22
CORUM- Justice Raj Mohan Singh
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
