In a landmark decision, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh emphasized that state-provided security cover is neither a luxury nor a status symbol to be granted arbitrarily. The court dismissed a petition filed by Advocate Sumit Nayyar, who sought the continuation of his personal security officer (PSO) after the withdrawal of his security detail by the authorities. This judgment underscores the judiciary's stance on the judicious allocation of security resources and the importance of relying on expert threat assessments.
Background of the Case
Advocate Sumit Nayyar, a practicing lawyer, had been provided with a PSO based on a 2016 report from the Senior Superintendent of Police (CID) Special Branch, which indicated a potential threat to his life due to his involvement in filing several Public Interest Litigations (PILs) related to the security of retired judges and court complexes. This security arrangement was intended for a limited period. However, in 2017, the authorities withdrew his security cover, prompting Nayyar to file a petition seeking its restoration.
Petitioner's Arguments
Represented by Senior Advocate M.K. Bhardwaj, Nayyar contended that the withdrawal of his security was unjustified, especially given the earlier threat assessment report. He argued that his professional activities, particularly the PILs he had filed concerning the security of judicial figures and infrastructures, had exposed him to potential threats, necessitating continued protection.
State's Response
The State, represented by Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli, countered that the threat perception had been re-evaluated, and a subsequent field report from September 2020 indicated no specific threat to Nayyar. They maintained that the decision to withdraw the security cover was based on this updated assessment.
Court's Observations and Judgment
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, presiding over the case, underscored that the assessment of threat perception is a specialized function of security agencies, and courts lack the expertise to intervene in such matters unless there is clear evidence of error or mala fide intent. The judge remarked, "It goes without saying that the security cover to any person is provided at the State expense, for which contribution is made by the taxpayers, which by no stretch of imagination can be construed as luxury to be provided to any person as a status symbol."
The court noted that Nayyar had approached the court seeking the continuation of his security without allowing the competent authorities adequate time to review the threat perception. Additionally, the court expressed surprise at the delay in the State filing its reply, which took over three years, and criticized the petitioner for not pursuing the matter diligently.
Implications of the Judgment
This judgment reinforces the principle that security cover provided at the state's expense is not a privilege or status symbol but a necessity determined by credible threat assessments. It highlights the judiciary's deference to the expertise of security agencies in evaluating threat perceptions and allocating resources accordingly. Furthermore, the ruling serves as a reminder that individuals cannot claim entitlement to security cover without substantiated threats, ensuring that taxpayer resources are utilized judiciously.
Conclusion
The High Court's decision to dismiss Advocate Sumit Nayyar's plea for continued security protection underscores the importance of relying on expert assessments in matters of personal security. By affirming that security cover is not a luxury or status symbol, the court has set a precedent for the prudent allocation of state resources, ensuring that protection is provided based on genuine need rather than personal preference.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.