Police protection is not a right: Gujarat High Court dismisses plea by wife of Sanjiv Bhatt

The Gujarat High Court last week dismissed a petition filed by Shweta Bhatt wife of former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, currently in jail, against the State's decision to withdraw her husband's police protection [Shweta Bhatt vs State of Gujarat]..Single-judge Justice Nirzar Desai held that citizens do not have a right to get security cover and also noted that Bhatt was granted protection as he was a serving IPS officer at the relevant time, but his protection was withdrawn after he was arrested in September 2018."Further, when police protection is not a matter of right and police have very limited sources of granting protection as the man-power in police force would be very limited, at the same time, if any application is considered positively by the State and subsequently withdrawn and if the State is directed to assign reasons for each and every withdrawal of police protection, in that case, that limited police force which is meant for protection of citizen at large and for maintaining law and order situation will be busy with those administrative work only," the judge said. .The judge pointed out that when the State's Public Prosecutor has made a statement and has made copy of the order dated July 16, 2018, by which the protection of over 65 persons including Bhatt's was withdrawn, the intention of the State cannot be questioned. "...the decision was taken by not one person but by a committee headedby Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department and the decision taken by said committee is approved by the State which shows that at various level the decision taken by the Committee was scrutinized and ultimately it is approved," the Court noted..It refused to accept the contention of Bhatt's wife that the police should at least furnish the reasons as to why the protection was withdrawn."If any decision in respect of police protection is directed to be placed on record, in that case, this Court finds that there is possibility that it may expose the various modes and methods of collecting information by the State in respect of security and threat perception about VIPs and VVIPs, which may be of sensitive nature," the single-judge opined. .The Court said that if such a direction issued to provide the petitioner, information based on which methods State decides whether police protection is required to be granted to a particular person or not and whether to continue with it or not, there is all probability that it may travel from one hand to another and ultimately it may lead to exposing such modes and methods of the State, which is of confidential nature, to the people at large. Ultimately the real purpose behind granting police protection may get frustrated, the bench added. With these observations, the Court dismissed the plea. .Advocate AJ Yagnik appeared for the Petitioner. Public Prosecutor Mitesh Amin assisted by additional public prosecutor Maithili Mehta represented the State. .[Read Order]