'Contrary To Constitutional Spirit', MP High Court Slams Businessmen Enjoying Police Security For 12 Yrs On Flimsy Grounds, Arrears Of Over 2.5Cr

In a recent decision, Madhya Pradesh High Court has deprecated the practice of availing police protection indefinitely on flimsy grounds without making payments, with the sole intention of "basking in the glory of position and power".

The single judge bench of Justice Anand Pathak underlined that providing police security uninterruptedly when there is no source of threat against the applicants is contrary to the constitutional spirit and undermines 'the well-being quotient of society at large'.

“…Director General of Police, Bhopal and Superintendent of Police, Gwalior are directed to immediately remove the police security given to the petitioners and take appropriate steps for recovery of due amount from petitioners for services rendered in accordance with law including treating dues as arrears of land revenue”, Justice Pathak noted in the order with regards to over 2.5 crores of arrears till 2018 due from the petitioner businessmen, who are siblings, hailing from Gwalior.

After these businessmen were threatened with extortion in 2005, the son of Sanjay Sharma (petitioner no.2), Managing Director, Heeralal Estate and Constructions Private Limited Company, was killed by miscreants. Afterwards, the petitioners continuously sought police protection with the promise of payment despite having licensed weapons of their own. All of the accused were convicted back in 2007 and 2018 vide two separate judgments. Later, when the granted police protection was removed, the petitioners approached the High Court and secured a favourable interim order in 2012.

“…It is common knowledge that Gwalior region falls in the vicinity of Ravines of Chambal, known earlier for Rebels and Revolvers (Weapons). Earlier, having the trappings of Feudalistic Pattern of Society, therefore, Power, Position and Police played important role in collective consciousness. Therefore, vehicle studded with Red Light, Gun adorning the shoulder of a man and person moving under Police Guards were always considered as Status symbol”, the court initially noted in the order before delving deep into the aspect of who would be entitled to protection and analysing the burden it causes on the state exchequer.

The four police personnel who were protecting the businessmen all these years could have been deployed in a better manner to prevent the acts of eve-teasing, abuse and molestation of girls prevalent in city areas, the court expressed its stance. Even otherwise, the police personnel would be required to discharge their duties in the upcoming General Elections, the court opined.

The court initially emphasised that the alleged incident that warranted police protection occurred nearly two decades ago whereas the petitioners have been enjoying police protection on the strength of the High Court's interim order since 2012, uninterruptedly, that too without making any payment of the hefty arrears that have accrued so far.

For protection, private security guards would have been better equipped than police officers; the petitioners insisted on protection from the police force possibly due to 'the shining and blazing impression' that officers leave, the court opined. Moreover, even the rivalry between the warring business factions is said to have been settled which displaces the need for further police protection, the court pointed out.

The court strongly expressed its view that police protection in the form of personal guards for petitioners is not a fundamental right or a statutory right. The petitioners, instead, seem to have demonstrated the security granted to them as 'a trophy rather than a necessity', the court further observed.

“…Police is meant for providing protection and security to common man and it is not meant for protecting persons like petitioners for years together that too without assessing threat perception. Regretfully, petitioners misused their position in such a manner that they did not bother to pay requisite fees/ charges”, the bench sitting at Gwalior noted.

The court also clarified that it was not placing an absolute bar on police protection for private persons. Such protection can be granted in exceptional circumstances, like on the dates of deposition where vulnerable witnesses are involved, as laid down in Mahendra Chawla & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 14 SCC 615.

The core duties of police department; namely crime investigation and tackling law and order problem cannot be compromised solely based on an alleged threat perception against a person, the court further added.

“…all functions of police authorities are to protect the people from the onslaught of Crime and Injustice and Functions of Sovereign is to create Just and Egalitarian Society and not providing special privileges to persons like petitioners (even on payment)”, the single judge bench laid down in unequivocal terms

Illustrative Instances Where Police Protection May Be Granted

The court listed the following instances as the ones that necessitate the assistance of the police force:

1. Poor, underprivileged or members of the weaker section of society or any peace-loving citizen facing revenge/heat of powerful or resourceful people
2. Genuine whistle blowers and bonafide public activist. Security is not for fake whistle blowers and for malicious public activist.
3. Persons having acute threat perception because of contingencies like deposition as vulnerable witnesses.
4. People serving Public/Social/National cause, attracted the ire of powerful people because of their good work and other related matters.

The court also reminded that the security provided to constitutional/statutory authorities is also not a status symbol and it serves a specific purpose.

Directions Issued

Before dismissing the writ petition filed by the businessmen, the court also issued a slew of directions to prevent the misuse of security provided by the police force in the future. No frivolous person should get police protection- to realise this objective, the Principal Secretary (Home Dept.) and DGP have been asked to reassess the threat perception of all individuals in the state who have taken police security on payment or otherwise.

A Committee comprising of Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Principal Secretary, Department of Law and Justice and D.G., Police, Bhopal would be formed. This committee would take appropriate steps in future to determine if Police Protection for some longer period is to be given (more than 7 days) to any genuine person, as per threat perception. For the lacunae of rules and regulations governing the grant of police protection, the court has empowered this committee to formulate the applicable rules for the time being.

“…For less than 7 days, Inspector General of Police (I.G.P.) Zone would be entitled for giving such protection. However, for vulnerable witnesses, or in some exceptional circumstances for a day or two, Superintendent of Police can also order for Police Protection”, the court recommended before parting.

The matter has been posted in July for 'compliance'.

For Petitioners: Advocate Sanjeev Jain

For Respondents: GA Neelesh Singh Tomar

Case Title: Dilip Sharma & Anr v. State of MP & Ors.

Case No: Writ Petition No. 152 of 2012

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 51

Click Here To Read/ Download Order