Police should not insist on court direction to give police protection for implementing civil court order: Madras High Court [Read Order]

The Madras High Court recently expressed anguish over the police insisting on specific court directions as a pre-condition for providing police protection to persons in furtherance of implementing civil court orders, despite both the State and the Court having made it clear that no such direction is necessary. (P Packianatham v. The Superintendent of Police).Justice J Nisha Banu observed that the High Court has retierated in umpteen cases that when police protection is sought for the implementation of a civil court order, it should be given readily."Police should not insist on a specific court direction to give police protection", the Court said..The Court also noted that the State government, by a 2008 Government Order, had clarified that the police cannot insist on a court direction before granting protection. Rebuking the police for having failed to toe the line despite the same, the Court said,."Even after the expiry of 14 years (Vanavasam period), this Government Order is not implemented in letter and spirit driving people unnecessary to the court. It is high time the police officers are required to respect to the orders of this Court and also to respect the Government Order.".The Judge went on to emphasise that a person seeking protection to enforce his rights after obtaining a civil court decree must be given necessary relief to protect the same. ."Right to life is a precious remedy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The main concern of the decree holder is that if his right to property(possession and enjoyment) as confirmed by the civil court decree can be protected only by getting the order of protection from the police, necessarily that relief has to be conferred in order to protect his right. Right to property is possible only if the right to life is protected", stated the order..To avoid a situation where the High Court is approached yet again for an order before police protection is provided in such matters, the Court said that the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu should issue a reminder to police stations under his jurisdiction. .The petition before the Court related to a civil court decree in respect of certain land, which, the Court found, had attained finality. The petitioner had sought police protection to carry out agricultural work in respect of the land and protection to the life and limb of the petitioner. .He was, however. constrained to approach the High Court after a representation for police protection made last October failed to yield any positive response. .The Court proceeded to dispose of the matter, while recounting the observations made earlier by the High Court in G Anand vs. The Inspector of Police, ICF Police Station, Chennai. In the said case, the Court had noted that while the police is not tasked with be arbiters of civil disputes or taking over the adjudicatory role of a civil court, the State's 2008 GO on granting police protection should be following in letter and spirit. ."Perhaps without understanding the stage at which the police can interfere in the civil jurisdiction, the police is insiting upon the production of the civil court order. If necessary, the the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, may also issue a clarification", the Court said, in parting. .[Read Order]