Salman Shahid vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 3403 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No.29
 

 
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28535 of 2017
 
 Salman Shahid
 
Vs
 
   State of U.P. and 5 others   
 
*************
 
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.

Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, J.

(Per: Tarun Agarwala, J.)

The petitioner claims that he is a social worker and is Secretary of the Yuvajan Sabha Samajwadi Party, U.P. The petitioner applied for a security cover fearing threat on his life by one criminal, named, Munir.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police by his letter dated 16.3.2017 informed the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Aligarh recommending that the petitioner should be provided a security cover for a period of six months as there could be a possible threat perception upon the petitioner from the criminal, Munir. Based on the said letter of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the matter was considered by the Regional Level Committee on 14.5.2017 and recommended that a security cover should be provided to the petitioner. Pursuant to the said recommendation, the matter was considered by the State Level Committee on 26.5.2017 and came to the conclusion that no security cover is required to be given. Such decision of the State Government was intimated by the Under Secretary by his letter dated 2.6.2017. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.

This Court entertained the writ petition and by an order dated 18.7.2017, the Court found that there was some contradiction with regard to the threat perception in the recommendation made by the Regional Level Committee and the decision of the State Level Committee and, accordingly, directed the State Government to produce the record. Since the record was not produced, the Court by an order dated 31.7.2017 directed the District Magistrate to provide a security cover to the petitioner.

The Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel. The record has also been produced, which the Court has perused.

The counter affidavit reveals that the petitioner is a contractor and is also doing business of property dealing apart from the fact that he is the Secretary of the Yuvajan Sabha which is a unit of the Samajwadi Party. The counter affidavit and the record reveals that there is no threat perception on the life and liberty of the petitioner and that the recommendation given by the Regional Level Committee was on account of a possible threat perception from a criminal who was already behind bars. In the light of such recommendation made by the Regional Level Committee, State Level Committee found that there was no actual danger to the life and liberty of the petitioner. The State Level Committee also found that he has already two armed licences which was sufficient for self protection, in addition to four licences being granted to his family members. The State Government also found that the security guard was only required as a status symbol because he was a political person and that there was no threat perception.

No rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. In any case the Court has perused the record and finds that the reasons recorded by the State Government for not providing a security cover is in consonance with the Government Orders, which have been issued from time to time.

This Court in Gayur Hasan Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (10) ADJ 575 and Dr. Pankaj Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (4) ADJ 115 have held that those who are indulging in criminal activities should not be given a security cover unless there is an exceptional circumstance.

Pursuant to the directions given by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Nutan Thakur Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No.6509 (MB) of 2013, the State Government has issued a Government Order dated 9th May, 2014 laying down various guidelines for grant of a security cover by the District Level Committee, Divisional Level Committee and by the State Level Committee. One of the criteria is that a security cover should not be given to such persons against whom criminal investigation or a criminal trial is going on unless it is imperative to grant a security cover. Further, security can only be granted where a real threat perception exists and should not be granted on the basis of mere apprehension.

In Dr. Pankaj Tripathi's case (supra) a Division Bench of this Court held that what constitutes a threat perception has not been indicated in the government order and that a threat perception is therefore, a question of fact, which can only be assessed by the investigating agencies and that it is not the domain of the writ Court to consider whether a threat perception exists in favour of a particular person or not.

The petitioner has a right to seek a security cover if he finds that there is a threat perception on his life. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides adequate protection but such exercise under Article 21 should only be taken with care and with caution and should not be used as a tool for personal interest or as a status symbol.

In the light of the aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion, that there is no actual threat perception on the life and liberty of the petitioner from any person. The threat perception from a hardened criminal was a possibility, which is not existing as the criminal is behind bars and there is no evidence to indicate any kind of animosity against the petitioner. It is apparent that the petitioner only wants a security cover as a status symbol.

In Dr. Pankaj Tripathi's case (supra) the Court held-

"Article 21 of the Constitution ordains that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. We find that even though the State is under an obligation to provide security to a citizen and there is an obligation to protect them, individual security should only be provided in exceptional circumstances. 'X' and 'Y' category security is a high level security for which the State has to bear a very high cost. Such security could only be granted in exceptional cases especially since the cause for granting such security to such person involves the State Exchequer, which is the tax payers' money. The State cannot spend such money in a cavalier fashion. The mere fact that the orders have been issued by the top functionary does not mean that expenditure should be made from the tax payers money."

The Court further held-

"No person can claim as of right that the State should provide him personal security to ensure that his life is protected. Once an arms licence has been granted, sufficient protection has been given by the State to protect his life. The philosophy of the State should be to maintain law and order at a macro level, rather than concentrating on safety of certain individuals in the society. of his own making for which the State can not come forward to provide him security."

In any case, we are of the opinion, that once an arms licence has been granted sufficient protection has been given by the State to protect his life. It is not possible for the Court to provide security at the micro level to each and every individual. It is a well known fact that the State police has a large number of vacancies and it is not possible to provide a police personnel to each and every individual. Individual security may be necessary in exceptional cases. In the instant case, the petitioner does not come in the category of an exceptional case.

For the reasons stated aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. The interim order, that was granted, is hereby vacated.

Sri Raghvendra Dwivedi, the learned standing counsel is requested to take back the original record after making an endorsement of the receipt of the record on the order sheet.

 
Date:- 19.8.2017  
 
AKJ  
 
 
 
(Ashok Kumar, J.)              (Tarun Agarwala, J.)