Police Security Is Neither A Fundamental Right Nor A Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that police security is neither a Fundamental Right nor a statutory right for claiming personal guards from the police department.
The Court noted that the petitioners had intermittently enjoyed the police security for many years which was provided to them after they had filed a petition in 2012 seeking police protection due to perceived threats to their lives and property.
The Court clarified that the police must provide security by deputing the police guards only in exceptional cases or for vulnerable witnesses. The Court ordered the immediate removal of police security for the petitioners and directed the recovery of the requisite fees.
A Single Bench of Justice Anand Pathak observed, “Sometimes giving police protection by providing police guards becomes imperative and sometimes is necessary to check the Law and Order situation. But, it does not always hold true because people start enjoying the shadow of their guards and cumulatively those guards also get accustomed to civil life/duties so much that they become misfit for rigorous drills/duty in future.”
Advocate Sanjeev Jain represented the petitioners, while GA Neelesh Singh Tomar appeared for the respondents.
A family member of the petitioners was murdered by some miscreants who were found guilty and were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. In lieu of this, the petitioners asked for the Police Authorities to provide for police protection. However, the police protection was withdrawn later after the petitioners did not make payment to the police department for the security provided.
The Police had argued that the petitioners were wealthy people and yet they had not made any payment against the services of the security guards. Secondly, the dispute between the petitioners and the miscreants was already settled and there was no threat perception.
“It is common knowledge that Gwalior region falls in the vicinity of Ravines of Chambal, known earlier for Rebels and Revolvers (Weapons). Earlier, having the trappings of Feudalistic Pattern of Society, therefore, Power, Position and Police played important role in collective consciousness. Therefore, vehicle studded with Red Light, Gun adorning the shoulder of a man and person moving under Police Guards were always considered as Status symbol,” the Court remarked.
The Court explained that the facility of police security was not to be used as a Status Symbol.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the petitioners to pay the requisite fees and dismissed their petition.
Cause Title: Dilip Sharma & Anr. v. State of M.P. & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Sanjeev Jain
Respondents: GA Neelesh Singh Tomar
