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 country and’ money ‘.
“Perception of threats must be real and the security committee must assess the perception of threats, taking into account reports from the intelligence unit, the police station concerned and exceeds 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.
Justice Singh observes, “Security must be given only to those who face a real threat to life because they have done some work for the interests of the community or nation from terrorists / naxalite or not vice versa.
Personal hostility with others will not come in parameters to assess the perceptions of the Petitioner’s threat To provide security.
“The bench also directed the registry to send a copy of the instant assessment to the head secretary, the Head of the Additional School (House) and Director General of Police, because it made a decision to provide security for individuals.
Applicant, Abhisekh Tiwari, has submitted a petition that alleged that he was an advocate in Lucknow Benchabad HC and practices on the criminal side and also the PilS file in HC to increase the problem of public interest and therefore he was threatened with his life and property and property He must be given a security cover.
The applicant has challenged the command of April 2021 which was authorized by the authorities to refuse its security based on the recommendations made by the security committee that he did not have a real threat to life and freedom.
Additional Chairperson of the Standing Counsel Amitabh Rai shows that the Annual Revenue of the Petitioner is Rs 4.50 Lakh and he never filed brilliantly to individuals or other people, showing that he had a threat from him.
The applicant was previously given security from Jaunpur at a cost of 10%, even though he did not have a threat’s perception.
“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 application, the bench further observes, “as a matter of principle, personal individuals should not be given security at the cost of the 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 rendered 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.
“