Granting Police Protection Merely On The Basis Of Threat Perception Will Be Against Public Morality If A Person Invited Situation By His Criminal Or Anti-Social Activities: Madras HC
The Madras High Court, while refusing to grant police protection at the cost of the State, held that if a person invites a situation through his criminal or anti-social activities, protection merely on the basis of threat perception will be against public morality.
The Division Bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice N Senthilkumar observed, “There are several persons who have lost their lives fighting for a public cause. Several journalists have been murdered for publishing news which are against corruption and social evil by miscreants. Similarly, a few Government officials have been murdered when they are in their attempt to prevent illegal sand mining or theft. In a few cases, people fighting for a genuine public cause are targeted. Whenever situation warrants, the State may consider grant of police protection to the such a class of persons, based on threat perceptions…Hence, police protection can be given by Court only in appropriate case based on threat perception. If a person invite a situation by his criminal or anti-social activities, protection merely on the basis of threat perception will be against public morality.”
Advocate R Sankarasubbu appeared for the Petitioner while AGP M.R. Gokul Krishnan and APP R Muniyapparaj appeared for the Respondents.
A writ petition was filed seeking to quash the impugned order and to direct the Respondents to provide a Personal Security Officer to the Petitioner at the cost of the State.
The Petitioner, who is an Advocate and a council member of the Communist Party of India at Needamangalam Taluk, submitted that his father Thiru Natesa Thamizarvan, a member of the Executive Committee and the Union Party Secretariat of the CPI party, was murdered by one Boovanur Rajkumar and his associates. It was his case that he was also attacked at the inducement of the said Rajkumar and he narrowly escaped from the attempt. The District police provided police protection at the cost of the State till March 2023. Subsequently, the said Rajkumar was also murdered and the Petitioner was arrayed as an accused and arrested in the said murder case. Following this, the Personal Security Officer was withdrawn.
The State submitted that the investigation in the murder of Rajkumar showed the active participation of the Petitioner in the heinous crime and therefore, no protective cover of a Personal Security Officer could be provided to a history-sheeter and rowdy element at the cost of the State.
The Court said, “The grant of police protection to an individual at the cost of State cannot be granted as a matter of right. This Court in appropriate cases, will issue suitable direction to protect the life and liberty of individual guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioner, in the instant case, has a criminal background as seen from the records. In the present case, the security cover given to the petitioner earlier was revoked as the petitioner was found involved in a murder case when he was under the security cover. The protection cannot be given merely on the basis of threat perception as it would be impossible for the State to provide security cover to every individual. In this case, the petitioner is involved in many cases, particularly, in cases where the major offence is either 307 or 302 of IPC.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Cause Title: N.T. Stalin Barathi v. The District Collector and Anr.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate R Sankarasubbu
Respondents: AGP M.R. Gokul Krishnan, APP R.Muniyapparaj and Advocate M. Sylvester John
