Security should not be provided merely to enhance one's status: Allahabad High Court declines to grant personal security to Lawyer

While finding no merit in a lawyer's plea for personal security to ward off threats he allegedly faced on account of his work, the Allahabad High Court recently observed that such security should not be provided merely to enhance one's status. (Abhishek Tiwari v. State of UP).A Division bench of Justices Ritu Raj Awasthi and Dinesh Kumar Singh, observed that personal security should be provided only to those who faced real threats or those who have done some work in the interest of the society at large.."As a matter of principle, private individuals should not be given security at State 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 ... 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/naxalite or organized gangs and not otherwise", the Court said..The Court went on to emphasize,"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.".The Court was hearing a plea filed by a lawyer, Abhishek Tiwari who contended that he received continuous threats to his life due to the nature of his work and that, therefore, personal security should be given to him..As an interim measure, in December, 2020, the government had allowed the provision of one gunner on State expenses as personal security to the petitioner..Later, on March 12, 2021, the Commissionerate Security Committee, Lucknow recommended for the withdrawal of the security and, on the basis of the recommendation, the State Level Security Committee passed an order withdrawing the security of the advocate Tiwari (petitioner)..Tiwari challenged this withdrawal order, submitted that the said order was arbitrary and illegal as he faces real threat. .The Court, however, found that Tiwari was asking for security as a symbol of authority and to flaunt his status a "VIP." Such practice of "creating a privileged class on State expense and taxpayers money, is to be deprecated", the Court added..The Court laid explained that personal security can be provided only where the threat perception is real, as assessed by the relevant Security Committee and further that the security should be provided only to those who faced the threat. "A personal enmity with others would not come within the parameters for assessing the threat perception of the applicant for providing him security ... A person or political personality cannot claim security on the ground that he faces threats from his enemies because of some private dispute with them", the Court added..The Court further observed that if there is no 'real threat' to the individual then it would not be proper for the government to grant security at the cost of taxpayers' money to create a privileged class. ."In a democratic country governed by rule of law and written Constitution providing security at State expense ought not to become an act of patronage to create a coterie of ‘obliged’ and ‘loyal’ persons." the Court noted.It clarified, however, that there could not be any dispute about the security granted for the President, Vice-President and Prime Minister, Union Ministers, State Chief Ministers and Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, since they represent the core functioning and authority of the Indian State..The Court proceeded to dismiss the lawyer's plea for personal security as lacking merit. .[Read Order]