Suhaib Ilyasi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1401 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner Suhaib Ilyasi seeks quashing of the decision for withdrawal of security, conveyed to him vide communication No. 7399/X-Security dated 20.10.2001. Petitioner assails the said decision as arbitrary and malafide since according to him grave threat to his life and family members, from dreaded criminals still persists.

2. Notice to show cause in the writ petition was issued on 24.10.2001 and 29.10.2001, respondents were directed to consider whether during the interregnum protection by one constable could be provided to the petitioner. a constable has since then been provided at the petitioner's residence. Pleadings were completed and counsel for the parties were heard on 6.8.2002 and judgment reserved.

3. Petitioner, an Indian citizen, is the producer and conceiver of the well known Tele serial "India's Most Wanted", telecast on Zee TV. This serial has been followed by the serial "Fugitive the Most Wanted". The said programme related to the most wanted criminals, who were absconding and whose cases remained unsolved.

Petitioner claims that the programme was unique to the Indian media and became very popular. petitioner states that the tele serial was not merely a television show, but a crusade and mission for him to reduce the crime rate of the country and to utilise the media power in the larger interest of the country. It is claimed that the programme led to encounters and arrest and surrender of 45 dreaded criminals, who featured in 94 episodes. The programme won awards. It is averred that the telecasting of the serial resulted in the petitioner's receiving serious threats to his life and his family members from dreaded criminals. Respondents, in view of the threat, provided round the clock security to the petitioner.

4. Petitioner also refers to the tele serial relating to the Khalistan Commando Force, giving in a daring manner, the information relating to Paramjeet Singh Panjwar. The said serial resulted in grave threat to the petitioner from terrorists. Petitioner has produced on record along with the writ petition a number of communications addressed to the Police Commissioner. Reference is also made to a threat received from one Lallan Singh of Bihar and others. Petitioner also refers to an attempt to have the petitioner poisoned through his servant. Copies of the communications addressed to the Police Commissioner, Home Ministry, Secretary Home and others, as also the Home Minister, are enclosed with the petition. In nut shell, petitioner claims that on account of exposure of the criminals leading to their arrests grave threat still exists to him and members of his family. The threats have continued unabated. Accordingly, the decision to withdraw the security, was wholly arbitrary, malafide and it would endanger the life of the petitioner, giving a free hand to all those, who are inimical to the petitioner, to eliminate him.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, wherein it is explained that the security requirement of a protectee is constantly and periodically reviewed by two high level Committees. One committee chaired by the Secretary/Internal Security, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, considers and makes its recommendation with regard to the threat perception and other factors in each case. The Committee makes a specific recommendation to either give or discontinue the security and/or upgrade or downgrade the security. The recommendation of the first Committee are carefully discussed and reviewed by the second committee, chaired by the Union Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, which finally decides to downgrade, upgrade continue or dis-continue the security of the protected person. The decision of the Committees is then implemented. It is stated that the Intelligence Agencies are also represented on the said committees.

6. The security cover of the petitioner was dis-continued on 3.4.2000 upon his arrest in connection with the criminal case bearing FIR No. 94/2000 under Section 498-A/304-B/201/34 IPC, P.S. Trilok Puri, Delhi. The security was restored only on 3.6.2000 after he was released on bail in the above case. A review was carried out on 25.8.2000 and security was reduced. Another security review by the committees was held on 11.9.2001. Based on the decision of the two high level Committees, referred to above, petitioner's security was dis-continued. It is stated that the security has been under constant review and adequate security had been provided, as warranted, based on the threat perception. The complaints received from the petitioner have also been looked into.

7. Record of the case had been called for and was perused. The policy on security of protectees individuals was also perused. The security is to be provided at government cost only on a comprehensive assessment of threat by the security agencies. In case, the threat predominantly comes from militants or terrorists, the individual is provided security at Government cost. The existence of threat to an individual from his professional rivals by itself is not to form the basis of provision of security at Government cost. Cases, where the threat emanates from organized criminal mafia or gangs, subject to protectee himself not being involved in the activity, can also be provided security.

8. A perusal of the record shows that the communication from the petitioner regarding threats received, have been duly considered by the Committees. The Intelligence agencies have made their recommendations, which have been considered by the Committees. The Committees on review of the material and recommendations made to them have reached the conclusion that based on the existing threat perception, security is not called for at government cost.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also sought to place reliance on Ramveer Upadhaya and etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. . It was held in Ramveer Upadhaya and etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. (Supra) that "it was implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to a citizen under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution of India that the citizen should be free from fear and threat to life inasmuch as the life under fear and threat of death will be no life at all and in cases of imminent threat to the freedom of free movement or right to life and personal liberty, this Court is not powerless, it can issue directions to the authorities concerned to immediately make arrangements of security for the lives of the citizens."

The Court in the said case noted that the facility of security guards provided at the cost of State Government was often withdrawn on the change of Government and made available to another set of persons. The Court, therefore, issued directions that the Government should enact law in respect of security guards providing for their qualifications, procedure of recruitment, training, their duties and conduct, rules regulating the services and entitlement of person to apply for security, the authority to grant and withdraw the same etc.

The said judgment cannot advance the petitioner's case. In the instant case, the authorities have, after a review of security needs and in accordance with the prevalent policy for provision of security to protected persons and review of the threat perception, reached a conclusion that protection is no longer necessary. It is not as if the Authorities had been reluctant to provide security to the petitioner. Petitioner in the past had been provided security round the clock based on evaluation of the threat perception. It is stated that even now if the threat perception is found to exist, warranting provision of security, the same would provided.

It is to be noted that an individual, who has been receiving threats personally, is bound to be deeply concerned about the same and can over-react or over-play the same, for a variety of factors, including the status attached to a protected person. The need, therefore, is for an objective evaluation & assessment by the security agencies. In the case of the petitioner, who is having a case registered under Section 498-A/304-B/201/34 IPC has had the threats received by him evaluated by the security and intelligence sources. The need for security had been reviewed by the two high power Standing Committees, who have reached the conclusion that based on the existing threat perception, there is no need to provide security at Government cost. The decision of security agencies and experts is not to be substituted by the opinion either of the petitioner or of the Court unless it is shown that the decision is wholly arbitrary or perverse and has failed to consider the relevant material produced. None of these factors exist in the instant case.

The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed with the observations that the security agencies should remain vigilant and responsive to any change in circumstances or threat perception, warranting provision of security.