Person Inviting Threat By His Criminal Or Anti-Social Activities Not Entitled To Police Protection: Madras High Court

“Police protection can be given by Court only in appropriate case based on threat perception. If a person invite a situation by his criminal or anti-social activities, protection merely on the basis of threat perception will be against public morality,” the court observed.

The bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar added that in our country, several journalists had lost their lives for publishing news against corruption and social evils, government officials were murdered while preventing illegal sand mining and theft and people fighting for public cause were targeted. The court added that the state could consider granting police protection to such protection but not to persons who, due to their own conduct, were faced with threat perception.

The court was hearing a petition filed by one Stalin Barathi against the order of the District Superintendent of Police refusing to give him police protection. Barathi informed the court that he was an Advocate and a council member of the Communist Party of India at Needamangalam Taluk. He submitted that his father, who was a member of the Executive Committee and the Union Party Secretariat of the CPI Party was murdered by a rowdy Boovanur Rajkumar. Barathi informed that he was given police protection after his father's attack but the Personal Security Officer was withdrawn when Barathi was arrayed as an accused in the murder of Rajkumar.

Barathi informed the court that he was being targeted by persons having previous enmity with him. It was submitted that though he was detained under the Tamil Nadu Preventive Detention Act, the order was later quashed. It was further contended that the mere pendency of a criminal case was not a valid reason to reject a request for police protection when there was a potential threat.

The DSP however informed the court that there were 22 criminal cases against Barathi in which some cases were of serious nature and he was even registered as a history sheeter. The court was informed that as per the investigation into Rajkumar's death, Barathi was actively involved in the same and thus police protection could not be granted to a rowdy element at the cost of the State.

The court agreed with the submissions and noted that the state could not grant police protection to an individual at the cost of the state as a matter of right. The court added that in the present case, Barathi had a criminal background and was also involved in a murder case. thus, the court opined that he could not be given police protection merely based on threat perception as the State couldn't provide security cover to every individual.

When Barathi urged the court to grant police protection at his own cost, the court observed that if such an application is made, it could be considered on merits and according to the law.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.R.Sankarasubbu

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan AGP, Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, APP assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 301

Case Title: NT Stalin Barathi v The District Collector

Case No: WP. No 1582/2024