Court Rules Threat Perception and Security Provision are Matters for Competent Authorities, Not Judicial Determination
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Vikas Chaudhary and another petitioner seeking armed Central Security Force Protection, specifically from the CRPF, citing a grave and persistent threat to their lives. The division bench, comprising Justices Saral Srivastava and Sudhanshu Chauhan, held that the assessment of threat perception and the provision of security are factual determinations to be made by competent authorities, not the courts, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners argued that due to multiple FIRs lodged concerning incidents such as property damage and alleged hacking, they faced imminent threats to their lives. However, the court noted the absence of specific instances or persons who posed a direct threat to the petitioners. It was also highlighted that the petitioners had already been provided police protection with a security guard as per an earlier order dated August 6, 2023, based on the assessed threat perception by the competent authority.
The court emphasized the principle of not creating a privileged class through state-funded security, which could potentially divert limited public resources away from welfare schemes. Citing previous judgments, the court reiterated that the provision of security should not be treated as a status symbol and should be granted only when a genuine threat exists.
The decision aligns with several precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Ramveer Upadhyay v. R.M. Srivastava, where it was established that the assessment of threat perception and the necessity of security are matters for state or central authorities, not the judiciary. The court further referred to cases such as M.A. Khan Chaman v. State of U.P. and Abhishek Tiwari v. State of U.P., reinforcing that security provisions at state expense should be justified by real threats and not personal enmities or status flaunting.
The ruling underscores the judiciary's stance on maintaining the integrity of state resources and the importance of adhering to constitutional principles of justice and equality, ensuring that security measures are justified and transparent. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, affirming the court's position that the petitioners do not have a statutory or fundamental right to claim police protection under Article 226.
Bottom Line:
Request for armed Central Security Force Protection denied as the threat perception and provision of security is to be assessed by competent authorities and not by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Vikas Chaudhary v. Union Of India, (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2853948
