The Delhi High Court in Anil Samaniya v/s Union Of India & Ors. has observed that since the State has the 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.
The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was the Investigating Officer of the famous Nitish Katara murder case, where Vikas and Vishal Yadav, the son and nephew of Sh. D.P. Yadav, Ex. Minister and Ex. M.P. were convicted and sentenced to 25 years in jail. Their sentence was confirmed by the Supreme Court. His Counsel also stated that the petitioner has held very sensitive and risk-taking job profiles wherein he has arrested, charge-sheeted, and had encounters with not only high-risk criminals but also terrorists and various inter-State gangs of extortionists and murderers. Furthermore, he played a crucial role in the investigation of the Nitish Katara case and was a key witness to the conviction of the accused.
Now, post his retirement he no longer has access to police protection and fears for his life as various gang members and criminals that he arrested are out of jail, having served their sentence and may wish to seek revenge on him.
The Court while coming to a decision relied upon Ramveer Upadhyay vs R.M. Srivastava & Ors., wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that:
“6. …………But what exactly is his threat perception and whether the same is grave in nature, obviously will have to be left to be decided by the authorities including the authorities of the State or the Centre which may include even the Intelligence Bureau or any other authority concerned which is entitled to assess the threat perception of an individual. But insofar as the court of law is concerned, it would obviously be in a predicament to come to any conclusion as to whether the threat perception alleged by a person claiming security is grave or otherwise which would hold him entitled to the security of a greater degree, since this is clearly a question of factual nature to be dealt with by the authorities entrusted with the duty to provide security after assessing the need and genuineness of the threat to any individual.”
In light of this and the submissions made by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court observed that it is the State of Uttar Pradesh who is the best judge of the threat perception to the petitioner. Once they have conducted an inquiry and come to a finding that there is no threat perception against the petitioner till now, this Court cannot substitute its own judgment to that of the State authority.
The Court also categorically stated that “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.”
However, it observed that the State of Uttar Pradesh shall be mindful of the security and threat perception to the petitioner and will take remedial measures as and when the situation may arise.