Madras High Court
Hasan Mohammed Jinnah vs The Director General Of Police on 8 June, 2022
W.P.No.10130 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.10130 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.10747 of 2021
Hasan Mohammed Jinnah ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Egmore, Chennai. ... Respondents
Prayer:- Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents herein to give adequate and necessary police protection to the
petitioner and his family members by providing sufficient armed men with
police escort with necessary arrangements in Chennai city and also during his
travels.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10130 of 2021
For Petitioner : Ms.A.S.Neela Narayani
For Respondents : Mr.S.Silambannan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to give
adequate and necessary police protection to the petitioner and his family
members by providing sufficient armed men with police escort with
necessary arrangements in Chennai city and also during his travels.
2. The petitioner was holding the post of Additional Public
Prosecutor for the period of 2009 to 2011 on behalf of the State of Tamil
Nadu before this Court. He also represented for the State in many sensitive
cases including the cases against the terrorist organization both before this
Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In view of nature
of the cases handled by the petitioner, he was provided security cover and
police protection which comprised three armed guards and a police vehicle.
However, the security cover was withdrawn from 24.05.2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10130 of 2021
3. Therefore, the petitioner made representation to restore the
security cover to him. Since it was not considered, he was constrained to file
a Writ Petition before this Court. This Court by an order dated 01.07.2014 in
W.P.No.7185 of 2014, directed the respondent to give necessary and
adequate police protection to the petitioner on need basis, whenever he
attends any public demonstrations, meeting or undertakes travel to other
districts. The said direction was not complied with as such, the petitioner
filed a contempt petition in Cont.P.No.2925 of 2014 before this Court. In the
contempt Petition, this Court disposed the same with certain direction with
regard to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner. Thereafter, the
petitioner was given police protection periodically. Again on 12.01.2021, the
police protection was completely withdrawn by the first respondent herein
without any proper notice. Therefore, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition
for direction to direct the respondents to provide police protection.
4. In fact, the first respondent through the Superintendent of
Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, Chennai, already filed status report
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10130 of 2021
dated 27.04.2021 and it revealed that in H.C.P.No.542 of 2020, this Court
Suo Motu impleaded the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department,
Tamil Nadu along with the respondents herein and raised several questions.
In pursuant to the said directions, a Security Review Committee chaired by
the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department, by the decision dated 28.07.2020 directed to provide security for
only 20 protected persons for whom threat persists and decided to withdraw
security for 16 protected persons for whom there is no threat at present in
Tamil Nadu. The petitioner herein is one among them to withdraw the
security provided to them based on the decision of the Security Review
Committee.
5. While pending this Writ Petition, the petitioner has been
appointed as Public Prosecutor for the Station of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the
petitioner is at present being provided with X scale of security with escort
from 12.07.2021 along with Personal Security Officer.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10130 of 2021
6. Today, Mr.S.Silabannan, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the respondents filed a status report dated 08.06.2022, to that
extent and assured that the petitioner will be provided with adequate police
protection in future in accordance with his needs, as directed by this Court in
W.P.No.7185 of 2014 by an order dated 01.07.2014.
7. It is needless to say that the position of the petitioner at present
is a pivotal one as he holds the sensitive post of State Public Prosecutor, High
Court, Madras and its Bench at Madurai. He holds the position of a “Minister
of Justice” as observed by various High Courts. His position requires visit to
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court and also to New Delhi to assist the
Senior Counsel in cases where the interest of the State has to be protected. As
the State Public Prosecutor, he handles sensitive cases besides politically
sensitive and important cases on the Original and Appellate Side Jurisdiction
of this Court. High position cannot be placed on the same footing as that of
other Law Officer of the State, as he exclusively handles politically sensitive
and important cases on criminal side. So, the threat perception to the holder
of the post of State Public Prosecutor and his family members are on the peak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10130 of 2021
side. It is therefore, imperative on the part of the State to protect the holder of
the post of State Public Prosecutor and his family members at all times.
8. It is seen from the judgment dated 01.07.2014 in Writ Petition
No.7185 of 2014 that this Court has already given direction to the
respondents to give necessary and adequate police protection to the petitioner
even when he was not holding the post of State Public Prosecutor. Whether
he holds the post of Public Prosecutor or not, the threat perception against
him and his family members continues to persist as he had handled in the past
sensational and sensitive cases during the course of his tenure as Additional
Public Prosecutor (Co-ordination), High Court, Madras, including the
Coimbatore bomb blast cases. Considering the continued threat perception
that loom over the petitioner and his family members, police protection need
to be given to the petitioner and his family members at all times.
9. In view of the above discussion, the respondents are directed to
provide necessary armed police protection with communication radio set in
addition to the security provided already. The second respondent also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10130 of 2021
directed to provide necessary guards at the house of the petitioner and give
escort team with vehicle. It is made clear that the first respondent shall ensure
that the above police protection is given to the petitioner whenever he travels
to other district or inter-State.
10. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks
permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition, since the petitioner
has been provided with adequate police protection. She has also made an
endorsement in the Court bundle to that effect.
11. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no
order as to cost.
08.06.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.10130 of 2021
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
To
1. The Director General of Police,
Kamarajar Salai,
Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Egmore, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
W.P.No.10130 of 2021
08.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
