Madras High Court: In a petition seeking direction to the respondents to provide police protection to the life and property of the petitioner based on his representations/complaints, N. Anand Venkatesh, J. while refusing to provide personal security officer to the petitioner, viewed that wherever the person seeking for police protection has a criminal background and such a threat perception is as a result of his own activities, the Court should be very hesitant to grant police protection.
Background:
The petitioner is engaged in import and export business and runs an educational trust. He is presently holding the position of OBC State Secretary in Bharatiya Janata Party. As he was facing life threats from various persons, he applied for a gun licence and was also granted a gun licence, which is in force till date.
One of the close relatives of the petitioner was brutally murdered in 2023. The petitioner alleged that X and his associates were behind this murder. From then onwards, the petitioner and his family members started receiving threatening messages from him and his associates. On 12-10-2023, X died in an encounter and certain videos were circulated as if the petitioner was behind his encounter. As a result, the threat factor aggravated. It is under these circumstances that representations/complaints were given to the respondents seeking police protection. Since the same did not evoke any response, the petitioner filed the present petition.
Analysis:
The Court said there is some material to show the petitioner faces a potential threat. On the one hand, the police is vehemently opposing the grant of police protection to the petitioner. On the other hand, the internal communication pertaining to the threat faced by the petitioner is leaked to the petitioner. This attitude on the part of the police is quite incomprehensible.
The Court said that while considering the plea for grant of police protection, it is very important to take note of the background and the stature of the person who is seeking such police protection. If the petitioner is a person without any background of criminal cases pending against him, the Court would have straight away directed the respondents to provide police protection to the petitioner without any hesitation. If there are pending criminal cases against a person and if he develops enmity/rivalry due to his own activities, even in such cases, there is a threat perception. However, if this Court directs police protection to such persons, it will send a wrong signal to society and a normal citizen should not get the impression that people with criminal background are also provided with police protection. If such an impression is created, they will lose their faith in the existing system.
Further, the Court said that there must be some consistency while considering the request for the grant of police protection and in all cases where the persons seeking such a police protection have a criminal background, the Courts must be very circumspect to grant police protection. In any case, just because some persons with criminal background are given the police protection, that cannot be taken as a precedent by the Courts while considering the request made for the grant of police protection.
The Court noted that there are three pending cases against the petitioner in the State of Tamil Nadu, out of which, two cases were registered in the year 2023.
Thus, the Court viewed that wherever the person seeking police protection has a criminal background and such a threat perception is because of his own activities, the Court should be very hesitant to grant police protection.
[K. Venkatesh v. Principal Secretary to Government, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 570, Order dated 01-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Advocate Nithyaesh Natraj
For Respondents: APP A. Damodaran
