"No Real Threat; Seeking Security To Flaunt His VIP Status": Allahabad HC Dismisses Lawyer's Plea Seeking Personal Security

The Bench of Justice D. K Singh was hearing the plea of a practicing lawyer of District Lucknow who claimed that due to the nature of work being performed by him, he receives continuous threats to his life and property and thus he should be provided with personal security.

Importantly, the Court observed thus:

"As a matter of principle, private individuals should not be given security at State cost unless there are compelling transparent reasons, which warrant such protection, especially if the threat is linked to some public or national service they have rendered and, the security should be granted to such persons until the threat abates. But, 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. In a democratic country governed by rule of law and written Constitution providing security at State expense ought not to become an act of patronage to create a coterie of 'obliged' and 'loyal' persons."

Facts in brief

Initially, the State Government ordered (December 2020) for providing one gunner on State expenses as personal security to him as an interim measure in anticipation of the decision taken by the State Level Security Committee.

However, when the order was still, the Commissionerate Security Committee, Lucknow vide its recommendation dated 12th March, 2021 recommended for withdrawal of the security and, on the basis of the said recommendation, the State Level Security Committee passed the impugned order, withdrawing the Security cover from the petitioner.

Petitioner's allegations

It was stated that the said decision was arbitrary, illegal as well as mala fide. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been pursuing criminal and public interest litigation cases against the State, therefore, in a mala fide manner the security cover had been withdrawn from him.

State's submission

It was submitted by the State Government that the Commissionerate Level Security Committee had specifically recommended that there was no real threat to the petitioner and, the High-Level Security Committee at the State Level had concurred with the recommendation of the Commissionerate Level Security Committee and, therefore, the decision had been taken not to extend security cover to the petitioner.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that a person or political personality cannot claim security on the ground that he faces threats from his enemies because of some private dispute with them and that in a country governed by the rule of law and democratic polity, a class of privileged persons should not be created by the State.

Importantly, the Court noted thus:

"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. There may be cases where public interest demands to provide personal security but the same should be done in a transparent and fair manner and, the State should be able to justify its decision if the same is challenged in the Court of law."

Further, the Court stressed that the case of providing security should be decided objectively by the authority taking into account all relevant factors and the same should not be provided merely to enhance the status of the applicant.

Referring to the instant case, the Court observed that there was no specific instance has been mentioned on the basis of which it can be assumed that the petitioner had any threat to his life or to any other member of his family.

Further, ruling that it won't substitute its decision to the decision of the competent Authority in respect of threat perception of the petitioner to his life and property, the Court said that it was evident that the petitioner does not face any real threat to his life or property.

"This practice, creating a privileged class on State expense and taxpayers' money, is to be deprecated," stressed the Court.

Therefore, the Court laid down the following parameters to provide security to an individual:

• The threat perception has to be real and the Security Committee has to assess the threat perception, taking into consideration the reports from Intelligence Unit, the concerned police station, and past record of the applicant.
• The security should be provided only to those who face a real threat to their life for having done some work in the interest of the society or the nation from terrorist/naxalite or organized gangs and not otherwise.
• A personal enmity with others would not come within the parameters for assessing the threat perception of the applicant for providing him security.

With this, the court dismissed the instant plea.

Case title - Abhishek Tiwari v. State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Ors.

Click Here To Download Order/Judgment

Read Order/Judgment