Security cover not status symbol: Punjab and Haryana HC

Condemning the misuse of police protection as a status symbol, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that state-provided security must be reserved strictly for individuals facing legitimate, verifiable threats, and not to create a “privileged class” and flaunt VIP status.

Calling for an end to the practice, Justice Manisha Batra asserted private individuals should not be given security at the state expense unless compelling circumstances warranted such protection. Security then also was required to be granted until the threat abated.

Justice Batra added it would be improper to grant security at the cost of taxpayers’ money if the threat perception was not real. “In a country like ours governed by the rule of law and democratic polity, a class of privileged persons should not be created by the state as it would amount to abdication of the very principle of justice and equality enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution,” the court observed.

Justice Batra asserted the limited public resources were required to be allocated judiciously, focusing on the overall welfare and protection of society, rather than being diverted for personal security of individuals with specific agendas. “When personal security is required, it should typically be arranged through private means unless the individual in question is facing verifiable, extraordinary threats that warrant state protection in accordance with legal guidelines,” the court observed.

Describing Punjab as a “strategically important border state in northern India”, the Bench added it shared a “significant boundary” with Pakistan. The proximity had “unfortunately subjected the state to illegal activities, including drug and arms smuggling”. The smuggling networks exploited the border’s vast and often challenging terrain, contributing to an influx of narcotics and weaponry. It exacerbated local law enforcement issues and social problems.

The situation had put considerable pressure on the state’s resources, necessitating increased security measures and continuous efforts to combat these threats and address broader socioeconomic challenges. The state, as such, required its police force to operate at its full capacity.

“The state police role is fundamentally centered on maintaining peace, law, and order within society, ensuring the safety and security of public at large. It is not the responsibility of the police to provide personal security to individuals, including those who may be ambitious or prominent, unless there is a credible threat to their safety,” Justice Batra asserted.

The assertions came as the Bench observed the petitioner, an advocate claiming himself to be the president of a political outfit’s legal cell, had been asking for security apparently as authority of symbol to flaunt his VIP status.

Despite having two police officers armed with advance arms and ammunition and round-the-clock security, there was no reason for him to demand an escort vehicle with at least five gunmen IRB/Commando, the court asserted.

Don’t create a class of privileged persons

In a country like ours governed by the rule of law and democratic polity, a class of privileged persons should not be created by the state as it would amount to abdication of the very principle of justice and equality enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution. — High Court