A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Avinash G Gharote, on February 5, 2021 in the case of Jamal v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Writ Petition No. 107/2020] dismissed a plea filed by the National President of BJP Minority Morcha – Jamal Anwar Siddiqui seeking ‘X’ category security. The Court observed that the right to lead a secured life would never include in it any right to lead a specially secured life, unless the special need is assessed and acknowledged by the State. It also rightly held that such special security would not come as a matter of right and matter, of course, rather it would follow the special need of the person and peculiar urgency of the situation.
Factual Background
By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondents to provide him or continue to provide him ‘X’ – category security. The petition was opposed by the respondents.
Case of the Petitioner
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was a National President of BJP Minority Morcha and by virtue of his occupying such a position, the petitioner remains under constant threat to his life and property. He submited that while other similarly situated persons have been granted ‘X’ – security, the petitioner has been denied the same.
He further submited that earlier ‘X’ – category security was provided to the petitioner, but that was during to the regime of the Government of another national party and in the interregnum another party’s Government came into power and the ‘X’ – security granted to the petitioner was withdrawn.
Case of the Respondent
This all disagreed to- by the learned APP, who submited that withdrawal of ‘X’ – category security was never for any political reason but was only on account of the changed circumstances which reduced considerably the threat to the life and property of the petitioner as perceived by the Intelligence Agencies.
She also submited that it is not the case that the petitioner has not been provided with any security. She points out that by providing one Gun-man for security of the petitioner with effect from 05.03.2020, the State has only performed its duty to protect life and property of its citizen in a diligent manner.
Reasoning and Decision of the Court
So far as, granting of ‘X’ – category security to the petitioner earlier was concerned, the Court observed that there was no dispute about it. It was granted sometime in the year 2017 and it came to be withdrawn on 13.12.2019. The reply filed on record by the State indicates that the withdrawal of ‘X’ – category security did not take place suddenly and without following any procedure. It shows that the decision was taken by the Intelligence Committee in the confidential review it takes periodically of the security arrangement of different categories made for different important persons.
It further shows that after collecting necessary inputs in the matter, the Intelligence Committee, which is in Marathi called ‘review committee’ took the review of the security arrangement and it was of the view that for the present there was no fresh or special threat to the petitioner and the circumstances had changed which indicated that continuation of ‘X’ -category security given to the petitioner was no longer required and therefore, the committee took a decision that ‘X’ category security given to the petitioner be withdrawn. Accordingly, it came to be withdrawn with effect from 13.12.2019.
A copy of a communication dated 02.03.2020 addressed to the DCP, Special Branch Nagpur City by DCP (VIP) Security State Intelligence Bureau, State of Maharashtra, Mumbai informing about such withdrawal of ‘X’ – category security is annexed to the reply of the respondents. It stands in support of what is stated in the reply of the respondents. There is no reason for us to disbelieve what is stated in the said communication or the reply of respondents. There is also no doubt expressed by the petitioner about the correctness of the statements made in the reply and the said communication. So, what appears to us is that there was in existence material for Review Committee to consider and review it’s decision, which it did consider and accordingly reached it’s subjective satisfaction regarding withdrawal of ‘X’ category security.”
Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness
According to Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness, the Court observed that whenever any subjective satisfaction is based upon material in existence and its appropriate consideration by the administrative Authority, review of the decision of the Authority by any Court is not permissible on the spacious ground that had such material been considered by the Court, the Court would have taken a different view.
"Therefore, we do not find that any challenge worth the name could be taken to the decision of the review committee to withdraw ‘X’ category security given to the petitioner. Then, it is not the case here that the State is being callous to the petitioner. It’s an admitted fact that the petitioner has been granted extra personal security by providing him a Gun-man by the State. Such security arrangement, we must say, is also based upon perception of the threat objectively seen by the State and therefore, cannot be seen to be inadequate in the fact situation of this case.”
"such cases what matters is not the own perception of an individual about any threat to him, but it is the perception of the agency of the State entrusted with duty to protect citizens is what is important. Such agency is required to take into consideration several relevant factors, follow the requisite procedure and arrive at appropriate decision so that, the additional expenditure of public money that is involved in such cases is not incurred without any reason and that the additional security to be provided is also not misused in any manner by anybody including the protectee himself. Nevertheless, if the person desirous of any additional and special security is dissatisfied with decision of the State to not provide him any special or ‘X’ category security, such person can always opt for engaging private Security Guards for his own security at his own expenses.”
Held
"In the result, we find that this petition is devoid of any merit. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.”
Case Details
Name: Jamal v. State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Criminal Writ Petition No. 107/2020
Date of Decision: February 5, 2021
Bench: Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice Avinash G Gharote
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
