Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed for directing the State Government to provide government paid security guards to Politician Srikant Tyagi as ordered by the Government Orders dated 20-11-2018 and dated 31-01-2019 and to direct the authority concerned to continue the security of 4 government paid gunners to him and 3 government paid gunners to his wife, Anu Tyagi, as provided after assessment of the life threat reports of the Local Intelligence Unit, the division bench of Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar, JJ. while dismissing the petition, opined that providing personal security would bolster the criminal activities of such a person to the detriment of society at large.
Srikant Tyagi submitted that due to political rivalry, some persons including Vinay Tyagi, Ex-Block Pramukh of Samajwadi Party, having criminal history of about 46 cases, extended threats for life to him and his family. It was also alleged that while he was traveling from Ghaziabad to Lucknow an incident took place at Toll Plaza Atariya, wherein a high-speed truck overtook his Innova Car with intention to kill him and he had suffered serious injuries.
Earlier, the Local Intelligence Unit, Ghaziabad had sent a report to the State authorities stating that there is a life threat to Srikant Tyagi from the said criminals. In compliance of the orders dated 20-03-2017 and 10-09-2018, Srikant Tyagi was provided security of four gunners on public expenses and his wife was also provided with the security of three gunners on public expenses. Subsequently, the security of the petitioners has been withdrawn on 09-08-2022.
Srikant Tyagi submitted that he and his family are receiving continuous life threats from the notorious criminals, but the State is not providing adequate security to them. It is the responsibility of the State to secure life of every citizen and when there is a threat perception, non-action on the part of the State is arbitrary, unreasonable and in contravention of the statutory provisions, therefore, the Srikant Tyagi and his wife be provided security at the cost of public exchequer.
After perusing the Government Order dated 25-04-2001, the Court said that it shows that security is provided as per the recommendation of the District Level Security Committee for a period of one month, which can be extended for a maximum of three months and further extension could only be given by the State Government on specific recommendation being given by the District Level Security Committee. The Government Order further provides that a review of the matter would be taken by the Committee on a monthly basis to review whether security is to be provided, considering the threat perception. The State Government has emphasised 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 opined that providing personal security would bolster the criminal activities of such a person to the detriment of 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 perception of threats, if any faced by such a person, is of his own making for which the State cannot come forward to provide him with security.
Further, the Court referred to Gayur Hasan v. State of U.P.1 and Nutan Thakur v. State of U.P.2, wherein it was held that security provided by the State to persons having criminal activities should be removed immediately. Thereafter, a review should be conducted by the State for providing security to those persons after considering objectively the evaluation of threat.
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition of Srikant Tyagi and his wife to continue their personal security.
[Srikant Tyagi v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine All 401, Order dated 04-07-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate Amrita Rai Mishra;
Counsel for Respondent: Additional Solicitor Genral of India, Chief Standing Counsel.
1. 2009 (1) ACR 514
2. Writ Petition No. 6509 of 2013