State Is The Best Judge To Assess The Threat To An Individual: Bombay HC Denies 'X' Category Security To BJP Minority Morcha Head Jamal Siddiqui

Noting that the right to lead a secured life would never include in it any right to lead a specially secured life, unless the special need is assessed and acknowledged by the State, the Bombay High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by the National President of BJP Minority Morcha, Jamal Anwar Siddiqui seeking 'X' – category security. The Bench of Justice Avinash G. Gharote & Justice Sunil B. Shukre observed, "Such special security would not come as a matter of right and matter of course, rather it would follow the special need of the person and peculiar urgency of the situation." Importantly, the Court, in its order, observed, "The special need of the person and peculiar urgency of the situation are the factors which cannot be decided by a person who is demanding a special security. These factors are required to be examined and dealt with appropriately in a dispassionate manner by the State by following procedure established by rules." The matter before the Court The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the National President of BJP Minority Morcha and by virtue of his occupying such a position, the petitioner remains under constant threat to his life and property. It was submitted that while other similarly situated persons have been granted 'X' – security, the petitioner has been denied the same. It was also submitted that the security was granted sometime in the year 2017 and it came to be withdrawn on 13th December 2019 On the other hand, the APP submitted that withdrawal of 'X' – category security was only on account of the changed circumstances which reduced considerably the threat to the life and property of the petitioner as perceived by the Intelligence Agencies. She pointed out that by providing one Gun-man for security of the petitioner with effect from 05th March 2020, the State has only performed its duty to protect life and property of its citizen in a diligent manner. Court's observations At the outset, the Court noted that if any person is desirous of security over and above the ordinary ring of protection already thrown around by the State, there must be some special reason or material to show that such additional and special security is indeed justified. Noting that there was in existence, material for Review Committee to consider and review its decision, which it did consider and accordingly reached its subjective satisfaction regarding the withdrawal of 'X' category security, the Court said, "If the person desirous of any additional and special security is dissatisfied with decision of the State to not provide him any special or 'X' category security, such person can always opt for engaging private Security Guards for his own security at his own expenses." The Court also noted that an opinion of a person about danger to his own life or property, in a given case, may only be a figment of imagination or due to some peculiar psychology of that person. However, the Court further said that, in reality, the agency entrusted with the duty to protect a citizen, may find that the own threat perception of such a person is illusory or unrealistic or blown out of proportion. Therefore, the Court opined that it is the assessment of the State alone, and not of an individual demanding special security, which is material. The Court also opined that if any decision is taken by the agency, after making such an inquiry and which is based upon the material revealed in the inquiry, such a decision being of administrative nature, would not be liable to be substituted by a decision of the Court taking judicial review of the decision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless the decision taken is not based upon any material or is actuated by any malice or malafides or is the result of consideration of some extraneous material. Lastly, noting that what matters is not the own perception of an individual about any threat to him, but it is the perception of the agency of the State entrusted with the duty to protect citizens is what is important, the Court found the petition to be devoid of merit and thus, the Writ Petition stood dismissed. Case title - Jamal v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Writ Petition No. 107/2020] Click Here To Download JudgmentRead Judgment

State Is The Best Judge To Assess The Threat To An Individual: Bombay HC Denies 'X' Category Security To BJP Minority Morcha Head Jamal Siddiqui

Sparsh Upadhyay

"Such special security would not come as a matter of right and matter, of course, rather it would follow the special need of the person and peculiar urgency of the situation."

Tags