Security Cover Not A Luxury Or Status Symbol: J&K High Court Dismisses Advocate's Plea For Continued Police Protection

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while dismissing a petition filed by Advocate Sumit Nayyar seeking the continuation of his personal security, underscored that the assessment of threat perception is a specialized function of security agencies, and courts lack the expertise to intervene in such matters unless there is clear evidence of error or mala fide.

“It goes without saying that the security cover to any person is provided at the State expense, for which contribution is made by the taxpayers, which by no stretch of imagination can be construed as luxury to be provided to any person as a status symbol”, remarked Justice Nargal.

The case originated in 2017 when Advocate Sumit Nayyar filed a petition seeking the restoration of his personal security officer (PSO), which had been withdrawn by the authorities. Nayyar, a practicing advocate, claimed that he faced a threat to his life due to his involvement in filing several Public Interest Litigations (PILs) related to the security of retired judges and court complexes. He relied on a 2016 report from the Senior Superintendent of Police (CID) Special Branch, which had initially indicated a potential threat to his life.

Based on this report, the petitioner was provided with a PSO for a limited period, but the security was later withdrawn, prompting him to approach the court.

The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate M.K. Bhardwaj, argued that the withdrawal of his security was unjustified, given the earlier threat assessment report. He contended that his work as an advocate, particularly his PILs, had made him a target, and he needed continued protection.

On the other hand, the State, represented by Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli, maintained that the threat perception had been reviewed, and the latest field report from September 2020 indicated no specific threat to the petitioner.

In his detailed judgment Justice Nargal noted that the petitioner had rushed to the court seeking the continuation of his security without allowing the competent authorities to review the threat perception. The court expressed surprise at the delay in the State filing its reply, which took over three years, and criticized the petitioner for not pursuing the matter diligently after obtaining interim relief.

“It is very surprising that it took more than 03 years for the Government to file reply in the instant case, which was filed on 09.11.2020. Thus, there was a deliberate delay on the part of the respondents in filing the reply and also contesting the instant petition”, the court observed.

The Court reiterated that it is not the judiciary's role to assess an individual's security risk, stating that such matters fall exclusively within the domain of security agencies. Justice Nargal cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Ramveer Upadhyay v. R.M Srivastava (2015 SCC 13 370), which held that threat perception is a factual question best left to specialized agencies. The Court also referenced Hazi Rais v. State of U.P. (2006 SCC OnLine All 621), where it was noted that security is often misused as a status symbol rather than for genuine protection.

The court further emphasised that security cover is provided at the State's expense, funded by taxpayers, and should not be treated as a luxury or status symbol. It reiterated that the assessment of threat perception is a specialized function of security agencies, and courts lack the expertise to intervene in such matters unless there is clear evidence of error or mala fide. 

The court also examined the latest threat assessment report submitted by the respondents in a sealed cover, which revealed that the petitioner faced no specific threat from any anti-national elements or terrorist organizations. The threat quotient (TQ) was quantified as 1 out of 10, indicating minimal risk. Based on this report, the court concluded that there was no justification for providing continued security to the petitioner.

In light of the findings, the court dismissed the petition, stating that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping it alive. The interim direction providing security to the petitioner was also vacated. However, the court refrained from making any observations on an application filed by Veenu Khanna, who had sought impleadment in the case and leveled serious allegations against the petitioner.

The court clarified that the dismissal of the petition would not prevent Khanna from pursuing appropriate legal remedies.

Case Title: Sumit Nayyar Vs State of J&K

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 102

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment