Date of Judgement:
4th August 2021
Coram:
Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh
Parties:
Petitioner: Abhishek Tiwari
Respondents: State of Uttar Pradesh through Additional Chief Secretary
Facts of the Case
- The petitioner is a practicing lawyer in the District of Lucknow, who is predominantly engaged in criminal and public interest litigation (PIL)cases.
- Due to the nature of his work, the petitioner was allegedly receiving threats to his life and property, thereafter which, he decided to approach the Additional Chief Secretary for providing him personal security.
- The Commissionerate Security Committee called for a report ,in this regard, for the consideration of the State Level Security Committee.
- The Joint Secretary, on 19th December 2020, on the recommendation of the Commissionerate, ordered to provide the petitioner one gunner at State’s expenses as an interim measure for six months. It also ordered the Commissionerate Security Committee to submit a detailed report.
- The Committee submitted its report on 13th February 2021. It was found that there was no serious threat to life of the petitioner.
- The State Level Committee held a meeting on 17th February 2021 and decided to continue with the six months security to the petitioner. On this recommendation, the State Government ordered, on 12th March 2021, to extend the petitioner’s personal security of one police personnel for six months.
- However, it was later realized that the State Level Committee had not considered the report of the Commissionerate Security Committee in its previous meeting. Therefore, during the next meet, that was held on 16th April 2021, theHigh Level Committee decided to stop the personal security to the petitioner.
- The petitioner approached the Allahabad High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging this order of the High Level Committee.
Petitioner’s Submissions
- It was submitted that the petitioner was involved in criminal and PIL cases, and therefore, was receiving threats to his life and property.
- Having considering his plea, the relevant authorities had decided to grant him personal security. However, the same was withdrawn before the completion of the said six months.
- The petitioner’s counsel argued that the order is arbitrary, malafide, and illegal.
Respondent’s Submissions
- The Respondent submitted that the petitioner had no serious threat, and that the intention behind his request is just to exhibit his VIP status.
- It was also stated that the petitioner had not registered any complaints against anyone on such threat allegations.
- The petitioner had also concealed from the respondents the fact that he was already having security personnel from the Jaunpur District Administration, and the same has not been denied by the petitioner in his rejoinder.
- It was argued that if such personal security is provided to the petitioner, then other Advocates, dealing with such nature of works, would also request for security.
- It was further argued that there was no illegality in the order passed, and that the order was made in accordance with the procedure therein and after due considerations.
Issues Involved
- Whether personal security can be provided to persons associated with mere political or personal threat?
Important Provisions
- Personal Security- A citizen in India is entitled to personal security by virtue of the office s/he holds. Accordingly, the President, the Vice-president, the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, Union Ministers, the Supreme Court and High Court Judges are provided with personal security. It is an undisputed fact that such security is granted to enable them to act fairly, impartially, and fearlessly to uphold our Constitutional principles.
Judgement Analysis
- The Allahabad High Court upheld the validity of the order passed by the High Level Committee dated 16th April 2021, and dismissed the plea of the petitioner.
- The Two-Judge Bench held that such persons or even political personalities cannot claim personal security for threat from enemies unless there is some real threat perception.
- “Case of providing security should be decided objectively by the authority taking into account all relevant factors and security should not be provided merely to enhance the status of the applicant”, it was stated.
- Personal Security should not be provided to private individuals, unless there is a transparent reason, and if such threats are linked to public or national service that they have rendered. Generally, every prominent personality faces threats at some time or other, and this is not confined to just lawyers, especially persons like the petitioner.
- In India alone, there are thousands of practicing criminal lawyers and PIL advocates. Though the Court did not turn down the policy of personal security altogether, it made a careful analysis on its eligibility criteria.
- The Bench cited a number of case judgements to strengthen its decision.A contrary view by the Court in this case would have encouraged more such applications by different individuals besides lawyers. There are NGOs, private organisations, activists, political personalities, etc. who face such threats in their everyday life.
- The Allahabad High Court was undoubtedly right in rejecting the petitioner’s plea. This would have a deterrent effect on such undue requests. It is to be noted that this is not the first time where the Allahabad High Court had dealt with this case. It pronounced a similar judgement around 12 years ago. However, the same was not taken strictly.
Conclusion
The case, decided by the Allahabad High Court, was concerned about the provision of personal security to individuals caught in real threats. There is no doubt that Advocates and other such prominent individuals work towards public justice by risking their own life, especially those dealing in Criminal cases and PILs. The petition was filed by a lawyer against the order passed by the High Level Committee dated 16th April 2021. It was alleged that the petitioner’s nature of work made necessitated the need for personal security, which was initially allowed by the Joint Secretary but was later withdrawn by the impugned order. The Respondents argued that there was no real threat to the petitioner’s life, and that he already had security personnel, which he had concealed from the authorities. Moreover, it was submitted that the reason behind the petitioner’s demand for security is to merely flaunt his VIP status. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition, and held that order to be valid.
However, just by virtue of these threats, it is not correct to demand for personal security at State’s expense. This would have some unwanted consequences in the long run. The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing the petition of the plaintiff, had mandated the want of real threat to justify the need for such security, otherwise the same becomes redundant. This is true because owing to the large number of individuals engaged in such riskier jobs, it is impossible for the State to provide personal security to each one of them. Sometimes, such privilege is also being misused. The Allahabad High Court, after perusing the case in detail, held that security should not be provided to persons without any real cause. The Court sets a good example to prevent such unneeded practices in the future.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
