Police Protection Has Become More Of A 'Status Symbol', Courts Can't Create Privileged Class: Allahabad High Court
In a petition seeking CRPF protection for life, the Allahabad High Court held that having police protection has become more of a status symbol at the cost of taxpayers' money. The bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan observed “..it can very well be held that the nature of threat perception and the liability to provide security has to be left to be decided by...
In a petition seeking CRPF protection for life, the Allahabad High Court held that having police protection has become more of a status symbol at the cost of taxpayers' money.
The bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan observed
“..it can very well be held that the nature of threat perception and the liability to provide security has to be left to be decided by the authorities concerned, since this is clearly a question of fact to be dealt with by the authorities entrusted with the duty and not for this Court to determine while exercising it's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, we find that the provision for security in the shape of police personnel has become more of a status symbol by means of which, a privileged class has been created at the expense of the State and the taxpayers' money.”
Petitioners approached the High Court seeking police protection on grounds that their lives were under imminent threat. They disclosed 3 FIRs lodged by them against hacking of their phones, damage to boundary wall of their brick-kiln and a false trust deed.
The Court observed that no specific instances were highlighted by the petitioners to show that there was threat to life. It also noted that the petitioners had been provided one security guard as per the threat assessment done by competent authority.
“In a country governed by the rule of law and democratic polity, a class of privileged persons should not be created by the State. Our country has got a written Constitution and as per the preamble, the goal of the Indian Democratic Republic is to secure justice to all citizens, socially, economically and politically, and equality of status and of opportunity to all.”
“The State cannot be seen as creating a privileged class in the society as it would amount abdication of the very principle of justice and equality enshrined in the Constitution. There may be cases where public interest demand to provide personal security but same should be done in a transparent and fair manner and the State should be able to justify it's decision if, the same is challenged in the Court of law.”
Accordingly, the Court held that the nature and gravity of threat is a question of fact which is best assessed by competent authority and not by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Vikas Chaudhary And Another v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 88 [WRIT - C No. - 41622 of 2025]
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 88