The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking armed protection by the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), clarifying that the grant of security depends upon an objective assessment of threat perception and falls within the domain of the competent authorities, not the Court.
The Court emphasized that:
“……….it can very well be held that the nature of threat perception and the liability to provide security has to be left to be decided by the authorities concerned, since this is clearly a question of fact to be dealt with by the authorities entrusted with the duty and not for this Court to determine while exercising it’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
The above observations were made by a Division Bench comprising Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan while dismissing the petition filed by Vikas Chaudhary and another, a resident of Aligarh.
While examining the facts of the case, the Court noted that although the petitioners claimed a serious threat to their lives, the writ petition did not disclose any specific or concrete material from which an imminent and real danger could be inferred.
The Court further recorded that pursuant to an order dated August 6, 2023, the petitioners had already been provided one security guard as a police protection based on the threat assessment conducted by the competent authority.
In this respect, the Court observed that:
“In a country governed by the rule of law and democratic polity, a class of privileged persons should not be created by the State. Our country has got a written Constitution and as per the preamble, the goal of the Indian Democratic Republic is to secure justice to all citizens, socially, economically and politically, and equality of status and of opportunity to all.”
It stressed that although in certain cases personal security may be granted considering the circumstances, such decisions must be transparent and fair.
In the instant case, the petitioners had relied upon three FIRs to seek CRPF protection. The first FIR, lodged in 2020, pertained to the alleged demolition of the boundary wall and labour quarters of their brick kiln.
The second FIR, also registered in 2020, pertained to allegations of forgery of a trust deed, whereas the third FIR, lodged in 2023, related to allegations of mobile phone hacking.
The petitioners submitted that these incidents and disputes presented a continuing threat to their lives and those of their family members, thereby warranting the grant of central armed protection.
Also read: https://practicinglawyer.in/economically-independent-wife-maintenance-section-125-crpc-allahabad-hc/
However, after analysing the pleadings of both the parties, the Court found that no specific instance of a direct life threat or any recent attack had been substantiated. It also noted that security had already been granted under previous orders.
The Court relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Ramveer Upadhyay vs R.M. Srivastava and others and M.A. Khan Chaman vs. State of U.P. and others, reiterating that:
“There is no right of the petitioner to enjoy this privilege ad infinitum. It is regrettable that on flimsy grounds people exercise undue influence and manage to secure gunners and security at State expense and at tax payers cost. In fact acquisition of a gunner has begun to be treated as a status symbol. This practice must be brought to an end.”
Restating settled principles, the Court held that in a democratic system, grant of special security must remain an exception. The assessment of the genuineness and gravity of threat perception lies within the exclusive domain of intelligence and administrative agencies. The Court cannot substitute its own assessment in writ jurisdiction.
Concluding the matter, the Bench observed that limited public resources must be utilised for public welfare and not for creating a privileged class.
There exists no fundamental or statutory right to claim police protection as a matter of course under writ jurisdiction. On these grounds, the Court declined to issue any direction for enhanced security.
Case: Vikas Chaudhary And Another vs Union Of India And 4 Others
Date of Order: 05.02.2026
See the Order: Vikas Chaudhary And Another vs Union Of India And 4 Others
