Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects plea by lawyer for commando protection

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that private individuals should not be given security at the expense of State unless there are compelling circumstances necessitating such security [Devinder Rajput vs State of Punjab and others].

The Court added that public resources like law enforcement personnel must be deployed judiciously for the overall welfare and protection of society rather than for the personal security of individuals with specific agendas.

“As a matter of principle, private individuals should not be given security at the expenses of State, until and unless it is found by the competent authority that there were compelling circumstances, which warrant such protection, especially, if the threat is linked to some public or national services such persons have tendered and, the security should be granted to such persons until the threat abates," the Court said.

Justice Manisha Batra made the observation while rejecting a petition filed by advocate Devinder Rajput seeking commando protection.

Rajput claimed to be the President of the Punjab Legal Cell of a political outfit named ‘Shiv Sena' and also said he is the Legal Advisor to the Hindu Takth, Punjab.

With regard to his threat perception, Rajput said he had contested the Punjab assembly elections in 2022 from Patiala due to which many “anti-social elements” nurture a grudge against him.

It was also alleged that his car was attacked on September 10, 2022, when he was traveling to Chandigarh. Further, he cited ransom calls and threats.

It was submitted that Rajput was given a gunman by police but that the security official often proceeds on leave. Thus, he sought one escort Gypsy and 5 Commandos as security.

In response, the police said no threat perception was found in this case.

It was also submitted that two policemen have been deputed permanently with Rajput and they perform their duties in shifts. However, the same was subject to review, the police told the court.

Considering the case, the Court observed that a larger number of persons including the President, Vice-President, the Prime Minister, Union Ministers, State Chief Ministers and Judges of Supreme Courts and High Court and other dignitaries are provided personal security cover to facilitate impartial decision-making.

“There could not be any dispute about the security for the aforementioned dignitaries, who hold offices of high repute and represent core functioning of the nation,” it added.

It also said that as a matter of practice, the threat perception is assessed based on threats received by a person for doing some work in their public life and in the interest of the nation and the public. 

However, in the present case, the Court found that Rajput had not mentioned from which person, gangster or terrorist, he had received threats. It also opined that his claims of receiving ransom calls lacked specificity. 

The Court observed that the State cannot be seen as creating a privileged class in the society as the same would amount to abdication of the very principle of justice and equality enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution of India.

It added that only the competent authority can consider the case and see to the threat perception. If threat perception is not real, it would not be proper for the government to grant security at the cost of taxpayers’ money, it remarked further.

“The limited public resources must be used carefully for welfare schemes and not in creating a privileged class,” the Court said.

Indo-Pak border and limited resources

In the context of Punjab, the Court particularly commented that the strategically important border State shares a significant boundary with Pakistan which has led to a range of complex challenges including drugs and arms smuggling.  

This situation has strained the State’s resources as heightened security measures were required, it further said.

“The role of the state police is fundamentally centered on maintaining peace, law, and order within society, ensuring the safety and security of the public at large,” the Court emphasised.

It added that the police’s responsibility is not to provide personal security to individuals, including those who may be ambitious or prominent, unless there is a credible threat to their safety.

When personal security is required, it should typically be arranged through private means unless the individual in question is facing verifiable, extraordinary threats that warrant state protection, the Court underlined.

Since the police had found that Rajput does not face any real threat, the Court remarked that he was asking for security only to flaunt his status as a VIP.

Thus, the Court dismissed the plea. It also clarified that the authorities will be at liberty to withdraw the security already provided to Rajput since there is no threat perception to him.

Advocate Onkar S Batalvi represented the petitioner (Rajput). 

Advocate AS Samra represented the State of Punjab.

Additional Solicitor General of India Satya Pal Jain with advocate Saigeeta Srivastava represented the Union of India.

[Read Judgment]