'Person Choosing Violence Can't Plead That State Should Take Measures To Protect His Life': Allahabad HC Denies Relief To Politician Srikant Tyagi

The bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar observed thus while dismissing a writ plea filed by Noida-based politician Srikant Tyagi and his wife who had moved the Court seeking police protection on account of the fact that they are receiving continuous life threats.

It was their contention before the HC that a history-sheeter and his gang members are continuously giving life threats to Tyagi and pressurising him to withdraw a criminal case lodged by Tyagi.

It was further argued that there is a serious apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that notorious criminals may attack him and his family members with the intention to kill them, however despite this, the respondents are not providing adequate security to them.

It was lastly contended in the year 2017 that the local intelligence unit had also sent a report to the State authorities stating therein that there is a life threat to the first petitioner from the said criminals and thereafter, Tyagi was provided security of four gunners on public expenses, however, the security of the petitioners was withdrawn subsequently in August 2022.

On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition by contending that several criminal cases have been registered against Tyagi, and therefore, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

Against this backdrop, the Court, at the outset, took into account the Government Order (25th of April 2001) which provides guidelines for providing security to people facing life threats, to note 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 the Court.

In view of this, taking into account the criminal history (of 11 cases) in the name of the petitioner (Tyagi), the Court opined thus:

“…providing personal security would bolster the activities of such 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.”

Further, the Court also referred to Allahabad HC’s decision in the case of Nutan Thakur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2014), wherein it was 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 the threat.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition.