Sowmiya Rajendrakumar
Published on August 01, 2022 at 19:35 IST
The Delhi High Court has observed that since the State has expertise and confidential information to evaluate threat perceptions of individuals, it is the State’s job to protect the life, limb and property of its subjects.
Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed a plea filed by a retired police official who was the Investigating Officer of the famous Nitish Katara murder case, where the son and nephew of Former Minister D.P. Yadav were convicted and sentenced to 25 years in jail.
It was the petitioner’s case that he was provided a security cover since 2002 and was to be withdrawn later when he retired on November 30, 2021.
On November 24, 2021, the High Court had provided the petitioner with security cover till the next date of hearing and issued notice to the Respondents.
In the response filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, it was informed that no threat perception was found against the petitioner and that security cover was not required for him.
The Court said “Once the State authority is of the view that the petitioner does not need round the clock security cover that in my considered view is where the matter should rest. It is the State which has all relevant information, the expertise and the confidential information to evaluate threat perceptions to various individuals. I am not to sit in the armchair of the State and analyse the threat perception to various individuals. I am not to sit in the armchair of the State and analyse the threat perception to an individual citizen. It is the job of a State to protect the life, limb and property of its subjects.”
“If, he is ever required to be called upon as an inspector or witness in a previous matter, he may approach this court or the appropriate authority as and when required and display the danger posed to him. However, presently when there is no threat perception according to the competent authority, I cannot doubt the finding solely based on the petitioner’s trepidation and distress,” the Court said.
It added “If every police officer who is an investigating officer in a murder case during his service career or has handled high profile cases is to be provided round the clock security after retirement, it will neither be feasible nor desirable.”
Accordingly, the plea was dismissed. However, the Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to be mindful of the security and threat perception to the petitioner and also to take remedial measures as and when the situation may arise.