'Police's Sensitivity To Protect Life Continues To Be Low': Why Allahabad High Court Pulled Up Budaun SSP

In a strong remark, a Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena added that the sensitivity of the law-and-order agencies to protect human life has "always been low and continues to be so".

These scathing observations were made by the HC while pulling up the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Budaun, over her affidavit filed in response to a writ petition by a man seeking police protection.

Briefly put, the petitioner (Nankram) had earlier approached the SSP seeking protection as he apprehended a severe danger to his life from 5 persons over a family land dispute.

However, after he received an 'indifferent' response from the police, he moved to the High Court seeking protection and the registration of an FIR against the private respondents.

Hearing his plea on April 6, the Court directed the SSP concerned to file a personal affidavit outlining the steps taken to evaluate the petitioner's threat perception and his case for the provision of security.

However, on May 4, when the HC perused the said affidavit and found it 'elusive' because it merely detailed the origin of the dispute between the parties and the preventive action taken by the police under Sections 170/126/135 BNSS against both parties.

The Court even noted that the understanding of the dispute was likely "entrusted to the wisdom of some 'Daroga' to fathom."

The affidavit in question, filed by SSP Ankita Sharma, also mentioned that an FIR was registered against the accused, a charge-sheet had been filed and beat constables were directed to patrol the village.

The affidavit concluded that the village was peaceful and the core issue between the parties was merely a land partition issue and family enmity.

Taking exception to these averments being presented as an adequate response to a life threat claim, the bench observed thus:

"The happening of an offence is one thing, the maintenance of peace another, but the threat perception alleged by the petitioner to his life is quite different. We find that there is an indifferent stand by the Senior Superintendent of Police as far as the threat perception placed by the petitioner is concerned".

The bench further remarked that "If tomorrow the petitioner were shot or assaulted in some other manner by respondent nos. 4 to 8, the initiation of security proceedings under Section 170/126/135 B.N.S.S. will not bring him back to life".

Stressing that 'prevention is better than cure', the bench said that the 'cure' in this case is nothing but a "retributive prosecution against the potential murderer or assailants".

"Punishing the offenders is completely different, as already remarked, and that, by itself, does not save a human life. It does only in theory by deterring future crimes, which, experience dictates, hardly deters", the bench further underscored.

Adding that the response of the SSP Budaun was "far below standard than what was expected", the bench directed her to file another affidavit as to what security measures she has in mind to take to save the petitioner from some unfortunate happening, which, the Court said, does not have a calendar or schedule.

The bench said that such steps would spare the Court from the unpleasant task of issuing orders for the provision of security, etc. The Court has now listed the matter for May 13.