'Routinely Ordering Police Protection Without Apprehension Of Serious Issues Diverts Time Of Police Force': Kerala HC Issues Guidelines

The Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji observed:

“The police force operates with limited resources and has to attend to various duties, often emergent ones. Routinely ordering police protection under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without the apprehension of serious law and order issues being established, would divert the time and energy of the police force from areas where genuine law and order issues exist. Thus, orders for police protection may have implications extending beyond the parties before the Court, and this is a factor which the writ court ought to keep in mind.”

In the present case, there was a civil dispute pending between the petitioners and the party respondents before the Munsiff Court for a prescriptive easement and an injunction. In the counterclaim, the petitioners had made a plea for police assistance and it was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners came before the Single Bench for police protection and the same was granted. Against this, the party respondents had preferred the writ appeal.

The Court remarked that the police assistance under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 and the police protection ordered by way of the writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution stand on a different footing.

Regarding the parameters to be considered, it observed, “The Court has to ensure that all prerequisites for issuing a writ of mandamus are met before directing the police authorities to provide protection to private parties. The existence of a threat to law and order is a jurisdictional fact for the issuance of the writ of mandamus. This jurisdictional fact needs to be established before a writ of mandamus can be issued. In a given case, the remedy of the party to approach the civil court and/or to invoke Order XXXIX Rule 2A or Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may exists, and in some cases, to other competent adjudicating forum. While exercising writ jurisdiction, the existence of an alternate remedy is a relevant factor to be kept in mind.”

Finding that there was no law-and-order situation but merely a civil dispute between the parties, the Court found it fit to set aside the judgment granting police protection and to restore the petition before the Single Bench to ascertain whether a writ of mandamus or an alternative remedy would be appropriate.

Thus, the writ appeal was disposed of.

Case No: WA No. 1866 of 2023 and connected case

Case Title: M.K. Aravindakshan and Anr. v. M.R. Pradeep and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 509

Counsel for the appellants: Santhosh Mathew (Sr.), S.K. Premraj, C. Anilkumar (Kallesseril), V. Saritha, K.V. Sudheer, P.M. Manash, Reenu Kurian, Aadil Nazarudeen, Jain Varghese, A.A. Mohammed Nazir, Yamini Gopalakrishnan

Counsel for the respondents: Dr. Thushara James – Senior Government Pleader K.S. Frijo, Aravind Ajith, Gigeesh Babu

Click to Read/Download Judgment