State Has Expertise & Confidential Info To Evaluate Threat Perception Of Individuals; Its Job To Protect Life, Limb & Property Of Its Subjects: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has observed that since the State has expertise and confidential information to evaluate threat perceptions of individuals, it is the State's job to protect the life, limb and property of its subjects.

Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed a plea filed by a retired police official who was the Investigating Officer of the famous Nitish Katara murder case, where the son and nephew of Former Minister D.P. Yadav were convicted and sentenced to 25 years in jail.

It was the petitioner's case that he was provided a security cover since 2002 and was to be withdrawn later when he retired on November 30, 2021.

On November 24, 2021, the High Court had provided the petitioner with security cover till the next date of hearing and issued notice to the Respondents.

In the response filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, it was informed that no threat perception was found against the petitioner and that security cover was not required for him.

The Court was of the view that once the State of Uttar Pradesh, being the best judge of the threat perception to the petitioner, have conducted an inquiry and came to a finding that there was no threat perception, the Court cannot substitute its own judgment to that of the State authority.

"Once the State authority is of the view that the petitioner does not need round the clock security cover that in my considered view is where the matter should rest. It is the State which has all relevant information, the expertise and the confidential information to evaluate threat perceptions to various individuals. I am not to sit in the armchair of the State and analyse the threat perception to an individual citizen. It is the job of a State to protect the life, limb and property of its subjects."

The Court also said that the petitioner who was no longer engaged in any ongoing investigation, had no reason to be called to court or turn hostile.

"If, he is ever required to be called upon as an inspector or witness in a previous matter, he may approach this court or the appropriate authority as and when required and display the danger posed to him. However, presently when there is no threat perception according to the competent authority, I cannot doubt the finding solely based on the petitioner's trepidation and distress," the Court said.

It added "If every police officer who is an investigating officer in a murder case during his service career or has handled high profile cases is to be provided round the clock security after retirement, it will neither be feasible nor desirable."

It was further opined that while the Court is always open to protect all citizens and their rights including those officials involved in sensitive cases, however, when there is no threat perceived or seen to be present, it will be a waste of state resources, time and machinery and able officers of the police force to provide the same.

"There is an abundance of cases and crimes yet to be investigated, in the process of investigation and still to be adjudicated by this court, wherein the state machinery is required. I must take cognizance of the fact that not only are the courts overly burdened with cases, the police officials are as well," the Court said.

It added "To delegate some of that force to the petitioner, in light of the fact that there is no evidence on record to show the threat to the petitioner's life will be inequitable."

Accordingly, the plea was dismissed. However, the Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to be mindful of the security and threat perception to the petitioner and also to take remedial measures as and when the situation may arise.

Case Title: ANIL SAMANIYA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 732

Click Here To Read Order