The Allahabad High Court while dismissing the petition observed that a person, who has chosen violence and does not have any value of human life, has no right to plead that the State should take special measures to protect his life from his rivals.
The Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Srikant Tyagi and another.
By means of the petition, the petitioners have sought following reliefs:-
“i. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the State/respondent nos 2 and 3 to comply with the Order/Letter dated 20.03.2017 and Order/Letter dated 10.09.2018 issued by the Government of India/ respondent no 1 and the Government of Uttar Pradesh may immediately ensure implementation of the direction to provide government paid security guards to the petitioner no 1, Srikant Tyagi as ordered/advised by the Government Order/Letter dated 20.11.2018 and Government Order dated 31.01.2019 and direct the authority concern to continue the security of 4 government paid gunners to the petitioner no1, Srikant Tyagi and 3 government paid gunners to his wife/petitioner no 2, Mrs Anu Tyagi, as provided after assessment of the life threat reports of the Local Intelligence Unit.
ii) Issue any other suitable and proper order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
iii) Award cost of the petition in favour of petitioners.”
The facts of the case are that the first petitioner is an active politician. He also participates in social, political and religious programs in different districts of the State of UP and country. The second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. Due to political rivalry, some persons including one Vinay Tyagi, Ex-Block Pramukh of Samajwadi Party from Block Purkaji, District Muzaffarnagar, having criminal history of about 46 cases, extended threats for life to him and his family.
It is alleged that while he was traveling from Ghaziabad to Lucknow on 18.10.2012, an incident took place at Toll Plaza Atariya, District Sitapur, wherein a high speed truck overtook his Innova Car with intention to kill him and he had suffered serious injuries.
In this regard, the first information report was lodged on 02.11.2012 registered as Case under Sections 307,325,323 & 427 IPC, Police Station Atariya, Sighauli, District Sitapur and the trial of the said case is going on. Again the said history-sheeter attacked him on 04.04.2015 while he was returning from Lucknow to Ghaziabad in which he sustained serious injuries on his body.
Regarding the said incident, the FIR was lodged on 01.05.2015 registered as Case under Sections 307 & 427 IPC, Police Station Sirsaganj, District Firozabad. Looking into the seriousness of the matter, the Central Government had issued a letter on 20.3.2017 indicating therein that the first petitioner is having serious life threat from the history-sheeters Vinay Tyagi & Tinku, Teetu @ Thakur, Ravindra @ Babli and Pradeep and they can commit murder of the first petitioner and his family members. The Local Intelligence Unit, Ghaziabad had also sent a report to the State authorities on 06.09.2017 stating therein that there is life threat to the first petitioner from the said criminals. In compliance with the orders dated 20.03.2017 and 10.09.2018, the first petitioner was provided security of four gunners on public expenses on 20.11.2018 and the second petitioner was also provided the security of three gunners on public expenses on 31.01.2019. Subsequently, the security of the petitioners was withdrawn on 09.08.2022.
Rakesh Pandey, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in this backdrop submitted that the history sheeter Vinay Tyagi and his gang members are continuously giving life threat to the first petitioner for withdrawing the said criminal case. There is serious apprehension that said Vinay Tyagi or any of his gang members may attack on the first petitioner and his family members with intention to kill them. The petitioners are receiving continuous life threats from the notorious criminals but the respondents are not providing adequate security to them. It is the responsibility of the State to secure life of every citizen and when there is a threat perception to the petitioner and his family members, non-action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable and in contravention of the statutory provisions, therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioners be provided security at the cost of public exchequer.
On the other hand, Counsel for the respondents have vehemently opposed the writ petition by contending that several criminal cases have been registered against the first petitioner and therefore, the writ petition does not require any interference and is liable to be dismissed.
The Court observed that,
A perusal of the Government Order dated 25th April, 2001 shows that security is provided as per the recommendation of the District Level Security Committee for a period of one month, which can be extended for a maximum of three months and further extension could only be given by the State Government on specific recommendation being given by the District Level Security Committee. The Government Order further provides that a review of the matter would be taken by the Committee on a monthly basis in order to review whether security is to be provided further considering the threat perception.
From a perusal of the said Government Order, the Court further finds that the State Government has emphasized that no security should be provided to a person, who is indulging in criminal activities and against whom, it is feared that providing security to them could be misused.
More fundamental question that needs to be addressed is whether it is desirable to provide personal security to persons, who are part of factions with long criminal records. In our opinion, providing personal security would bolster the activities of such a person to the detriment of the society at large. A person, who has chosen violence and does not have any value of human life, has no right to plead that the State should take special measures to protect his life from his rivals. The threat perception, if any faced by such a person, is of his own making for which the State cannot come forward to provide him security.
“In Nutan Thakur Vs State of U.P & Ors, a Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench of this Court, by an order dated 3rd March, 2014 held that security provided by the State to persons having criminal activities should be removed immediately and thereafter, a review should be conducted by the State for providing security to those persons after considering objectively the evaluation of threat. The Court held: “We, thus, provide that security to all such persons shall be removed within a period of ten days and thereafter review regarding threat perception may be conducted by the State Government at appropriate level within next fifteen days and depending upon the evaluation of threat perception in the manner provided herein above in this order, the State Government will consider for providing the security only if it is found that there is actual and real threat perception to the individuals concerned.”
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter’, the Court further observed while dismissing the petition.