Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court

Police Not Meant for Extended Individual Protection without Valid Threat: MP High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified the limits of state-provided police protection, emphasizing that it should not be extended indefinitely to individuals without a valid and current threat perception.

Facts and Issues: The petitioners, Dilip Sharma and another, sought continued police protection citing past incidents of threat and a fatal attack on a family member. They argued for the necessity of state-provided security, which had previously been granted but was withdrawn due to the settlement of disputes and lack of present threat. The respondents, including the State of Madhya Pradesh, contested the petition, highlighting concerns of police resource misuse and non-payment of security fees by the petitioners.

Past Incidents vs. Current Threat: Justice Anand Pathak observed that while the petitioners faced genuine threats in the past, the necessity for continued police protection was questionable, especially after the conviction of the assailants.

Misuse of Police Protection: The court criticized the petitioners for treating police protection as a status symbol, emphasizing that police resources are meant for public welfare and crime investigation, not for serving as personal security for individuals in the absence of a valid threat.

Financial Implications: It was noted that the petitioners had accumulated a substantial amount of unpaid security fees, amounting to over Rs. 2 crores. The court directed the recovery of these dues, highlighting the financial strain on public resources.

Legal Precedents and Principles: The court referred to the Supreme Court’s directions in Mahendra Chawla and others v. Union of India, concerning witness protection, and differentiated it from the petitioners’ case.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition, directing the immediate withdrawal of police protection and recovery of unpaid fees. It also instructed authorities to reassess the threat perception for all individuals receiving state-provided security in Madhya Pradesh, emphasizing the prioritization of public welfare and effective law enforcement over individual protection without a substantiated threat.

Date of Decision: 14th March 2024

Dilip Sharma & Anr. v. State of M.P. & Ors.

Similar News