Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Disclosure Of Reasons For Withdrawal Of Sanjiv Bhatt’s Security In 2018

While dismissing the petition, the single judge bench of Justice Nirzar S. Desai said the reason behind granting police protection, at the relevant point of time, was the fact that the husband of the petitioner was serving as an IPS officer, and also was a witness in a criminal trial. 

While the petition prayed for providing security to Shweta Sanjay Bhatt and her family, her counsel did not press the prayers during the hearing and limited the case to the prayers for production of the record related to the process of withdrawal of security. 

The court said Sanjiv Bhatt has been in jail since September 2018 and thus the ground on which the police protection was sought, at the relevant point of time by the petitioner, does not exist today.

"Further, when police protection is not a matter of right and police have very limited sources of granting protection as the men-power in police force would be very limited, at the same time, if any application is considered positively by the State Government and subsequently withdrawn and if the State is directed to assign reasons for each and every withdrawal of police protection, in that case, that limited police force which is meant for protection of citizen at large and for maintaining law and order situation will be busy with those administrative work only."

Sanjiv Bhatt's police protection was withdrawn by the State government vide order dated 16.07.2018 which was placed before the co-ordinate bench of the High Court on 03.12.2021 on its direction.

The counsel for the petitioner, A. J. Yagnik contended that the order dated 16.07.2018 is provided to him but the same can be said to be communication only and not the order.

He further submitted that it is the right of the petitioner to know the grounds or reasons for which the police protection provided to her husband was withdrawn and urged the court to direct the State Government to produce reasoning behind the order dated 16.07.2018. He also argued that the action of the State of not providing reasons for withdrawing police protection amounts to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The Public Prosecutor, Mitesh Amin submitted that the order on withdrawal of security is an order of confidential nature and it was provided under directions of the Court. He added the rest of the documents are sensitive in nature, pertaining to the security of VIP and VVIPs or the persons, who have asked for police protection, and the State does not want to part with them

It was further argued by the State that vide order dated 16.07.2018, police protection granted to as many as 64 persons was withdrawn after assessing the overall situation by committee headed by the Additional Chief Secretary of Home Department in its meeting dated 15.05.2018.

He further submitted that at the relevant point of time, considering the fact that the husband of the petitioner was serving as police officer and was a witness in particular criminal case, police protection was granted to him and since those circumstances now do not exist and the husband of petitioner is behind bars, the police protection has been rightly withdrawn.

The court said when a responsible State Officer like learned Public Prosecutor makes a statement at bar and makes available copy of the order dated 16.07.2018 whereby the police protection was withdrawn not only in respect of the petitioner's husband but in respect of total 64 persons also, intention of the State Government cannot be questioned.

"... as the decision was taken by not one person but by a committee headed by Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department of State Government and the decision taken by said committee is approved by the State Government which shows that at various level the decision taken by the Committee was scrutinized and ultimately it is approved," it added.

The court also that if decision of government is directed to be placed on record, there is possibility that it may expose the various modes and methods of collecting information by the State Government in respect of security and threat perception about VIPs and VVIPs, which may be of sensitive nature. 

"If such decision is directed to be provided to the petitioner by which methods State Government decides whether police protection is required to be granted to a particular person or not and whether to continue with it or not, there is all probability that it may travel from one hand to another and ultimately it may lead to exposing such modes and methods of the State Government which is of confidential nature to the people at large and ultimately the real purpose behind the granting of police protection may get frustrated," said the court,

It further said: "When the petitioner could not successfully establish his right of getting police protection, after overall consideration by the State Government for withdrawal of police protection if any order is passed, it is not open for the petitioner to ask for reasonings behind withdrawal of police protection."

The court said it finds that State is absolutely justified in not disclosing the reasons and in refusing to place any other material as the right of the petitioner is very limited. 

"Even in the prayer also the petitioner has specifically asked for order dated 16.07.2018 and therefore the Co-ordinate Bench has observed in its order dated 03.12.2021 that order dated 02.12.2019 is complied with. Since in the prayer itself the petitioner has prayed for production of communication dated 16.07.2018, the same is produced by the State Government," said the court.

With regard to prayer for production of relevant documents to show that whether essential factors were considered by the Reviewing Committee, the court said the confidentiality of mode and method about providing or withdrawing the police protection will not be maintained of those factors are asked to be disclosed.

"Therefore, in larger public interest, I do not deem it appropriate to issue any further direction once the order dated 16.07.2018 is already made available on record and is already provided to the petitioner," it said.

The application was dismissed by the court and the main petition was disposed of as not pressed.

Case Title: Shweta Sanjay Bhatt v. State of Gujarat

Case Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 35

Coram: Justice Nirzar S. Desai

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment