Lucknow: Lucknow bench from the High Court of Allahabad has delayed the practice of giving a security to someone ‘so that it creates a special class on the expense of the state and’ money ‘.
“Perception of threats must be real and the security committee must assess the perception of threats, taking into account the report from the intelligence unit, the police station concerned and the Petitioner’s record,” Bench said.
Destroying the writing petition transferred by a lawyer, just a judicial bench Raj Awasthi and Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh said that from the record it was proven that he had no real threats to life and property.
Taking judgment for benches, Singh justice observes, “Security must be given only to those who face a real threat to their lives because they have done some work for the benefit of the community or the nation of a terrorist / maoist gang or not vice versa.
Personal hostility with others will not come In the parameter to assess the perception of the Petitioner’s threat to provide security.
“The bench also directs the registry to send a copy of the instant assessment to the Secretary of the Chief, and the Director General of Police, for compliance and make decisions, therefore, to provide security for an individual.
Applicant, Abhisekh Tiwari, has submitted a petition in HC allege that he is an advocate in Lucknow from the High Court of Allahabad and the practice of a criminal side and also the PilS file in HC to increase the problem of public interest and therefore he has been threatened to life and property and property He must be given a security cover.
The applicant has challenged the command of April 2021 which was rejected by the security authorities based on recommendations made by the high-level security committee that he did not have a real threat to life and freedom.
Opposing pills, the additional head of Counsel standing Amitabh Rai shows that the Petitioner’s annual income is Rs 4.50 Lakh and he never filed a complaint to the authorities or submitted beginners to individuals or others, showing that he had a threat from him.
The applicant was previously given security from Jaunpur at a cost of 10%, even though he no longer has a perception of threats.
“If the Petitioner’s disputation is received, every advocate, training on the criminal side will be asked to be given personal security,” Rai said.
Turning off the Petitioner’s request, further bench observes, “As a matter of principle, private individuals should not be given security at the cost of state unless there is an interesting transparent reason, which guarantees the protection, especially if the threat is related to some public.
Or national services they have Render and, security must be given to these people until the threat subsides.
However, if the perception of the threat is not real, it will not be right for the government to provide security at the cost of taxpayer money and to create a special class.
“