Govt security cover should be granted only when threat perception is real: Allahabad HC

LUCKNOW: A Lucknow bench of Allahabad high court has deprecated the practice of granting security to a person 'thus creating a privileged class at the state expense and taxpayers' money'.
“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 police station concerned and past record of the applicant,” the bench said.
Dismissing a writ petition moved by a lawyer, a bench of Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh said that from records it was evident that he did not have any real threat to his life and property.
Pronouncing the judgment for the bench, Justice Singh observed, “The security should be provided only to those who face real threat to their life for having done some work in the interest of the society or the nation from terrorist/Maoist or organized gangs and not otherwise. A personal enmity with other would not come within the parameters for assessing the threat perception of the applicant for providing him security."
The bench also directed its registry to send copy of the instant judgment to the chief secretary, additional chief secretary (home) and director general of police, for compliance and taking decision, accordingly, for providing security to an individual.
The petitioner, Abhisekh Tiwari, had filed the petition in the HC alleging that he is an advocate in Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court and practices on criminal side and also files PILs in the HC to raise public interest issues and as such he has got threat to his life and property and he should be granted the security cover.
The petitioner had challenged an order of April 2021 passed by the authorities refusing him the security on the basis of recommendation made by a high-level security committee that he had no real threat to his life and liberty.
Opposing the PIL, additional chief standing counsel Amitabh Rai pointed out that the petitioner's annual income was Rs 4.50 lakh and he never any complaint to authorities or lodged any FIR against individuals or others, indicating that he had any threat from him or them.
The petitioner was earlier granted security from Jaunpur at 10% expenses, though he has no longer any threat perception. “If the petitioner’s contention is accepted then every advocate, practising on criminal side would be required to be given personal security,” Rai said.
Turning down the petitioner’s plea, the bench further observed, “As a matter of principle, private individuals should not be given security at the state's 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 tax payers money and to create a privileged class."