Punjab Is Border State, Police Needed To Maintain Law & Order Instead Of Guarding 'Privileged Class' On Unsubstantiated Threats: High Court
Observing that Punjab being a border State needs its Police for maintaining law and order, the Punjab & Haryana High Court refused the plea of a lawyer seeking commando protection.
Justice Manisha Batra said, "As a matter of principle, private individuals should not be given security at the expenses of State, until and unless it is found by the competent authority that there were compelling circumstances, which warrant such protection, especially if the threat is linked to some public or national service such persons have rendered and, the security should be granted to such persons until the threat abates."
The Court further added that if the threat perception is not real, it would not be proper for the Government to grant security at the cost of taxpayers' money and to create a privileged class.
Justice Batra also highlighted Punjab, a strategically important border state in northern India, shares a significant boundary with Pakistan, which has led to a range of complex challenges to it.
"The proximity to the international border has unfortunately subjected Punjab to various illegal activities, including drug and arms smuggling. The smuggling networks exploit the border's vast and often challenging terrain, contributing to an influx of narcotics and weaponry that exacerbate local law enforcement issues and social problems," added the Court.
The Court said that the state's resources is strained due to ongoing efforts to curb threats of border state, hence State needs the services of its police officials at its best for maintaining law and order.
The judge made it clear that it is not the responsibility of the police to provide personal security to individuals, including those who may be ambitious or prominent, unless there is a credible threat to their safety.
These observations were made while hearing the plea of Devinder Rajput seeking a gypsy escort and 5 commandos. Rajput stated to be the President of the Punjab Legal Cell of a political outfit named 'Shiv Sena'.
He submitted that he contested the Punjab assembly elections in 2022 from Patiala due to which many “anti-social elements” nurture a grudge against him and in 2022 his car was attacked when he was traveling to Chandigarh.
However, the police submitted that no threat perception was found and with regard to the alleged incidents as an interim measure, the petitioner has been provided 24x7 hours security cover as two police officers.
After hearing the submissions, the Court observed that in the country, a large number of persons are being provided personal security, including the President, Vice-President, the Prime Minister, Union Ministers, State Chief Ministers and Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts and several other dignitaries, who have been provided with positional/statutory security cover to facilitate impartial decision-making process.
"Undoubtedly, the degree of threat varies from individual to individual, depending on the factors such as the nature of activities, status and activities, the persons are indulged in. There could not be any dispute about the security for the aforementioned dignitaries, who hold offices of high repute and represent core functioning of the nation," it added.
The Court further said that, as a matter of practice, the threat perception is assessed on the basis of threats received from terrorist groups, militants, extremist, fundamentalists or organized criminal gangs for some work done by the person in their public life and in the interest of nation and public at large.
It pointed that Rajput nowhere mentioned as to from which person, gangster or terrorist, he has been receiving threat to his life and liberty and as to why because he was not the only person, who had contested the aforesaid elections in the State of Punjab or had made any statement against any extremist.
Class Of Privileged Persons Can't Be Created In Country Governed By Rule Of Law
The judge observed that in a country, like ours, governed by the rule of law and democratic polity, a class of privileged persons should not be created by the State.
"The State cannot be seen as creating a privileged class in the society as it would amount to abdication of the very principle of justice and equality enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution," added the Court.
Referring to Rajinder Saini Vs. State of Punjab and others, [CWP-19453-2015], the Court said, "If there is actual threat then only concerned authority can consider the case and make recommendation to the Government at their own level for providing security. What exactly is threat perception and whether it is grave in nature, obviously will have to be left to be decided by the concerned authority. The Court cannot determine as to whether the petitioner has any threat perception and requires security urgently."
The Court also said that when personal security is required, it should typically be arranged through private means unless the individual in question is facing verifiable, extraordinary threats that warrant state protection in accordance with legal guidelines.
While noting that in police enquiry it was found that Rajput does not face any real threat to his life or liberty, the Court opined that the plea is devoid of any merit and dismissed it.
Mr. Onkar S. Batalvi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A. S. Samra, AAG, Punjab for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India with Ms. Saigeeta Srivastava, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Union of India.
Title: Devinder Rajput v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 274