Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a council member of the Communist Party of India in Needamangalam Taluk, seeking direction to the police to provide him a personal security officer at the state's expense.

N.T. Stalin Barathi, who claimed to be an Advocate as well, submitted that his father, an Executive Committee member and part of the Union Party Secretariat of the CPI, was murdered in November 2021 by a notorious criminal named Boovanur Rajkumar and his associates. Barathi stated that he was also attacked on Rajkumar's orders but managed to escape.

He apprised the court that, due to the threat following his father's death, the district police provided him with protection funded by the state until March 2023. However, after Rajkumar was murdered, of which Barathi was also a suspect, the police withdrew the personal security officer.

He further informed the court that his request for police protection, submitted to the District Superintendent of Police in Thiruvarur, was denied on November 21, 2023.

Barathi's counsel argued that the mere pendency of criminal cases involving Barathi was not a valid reason to reject the request when a potential threat to his life and property was not disputed.

Therefore, the counsel urged the court to direct the police to provide Barathi with protection, as he was facing an imminent threat.

On the other hand, the DSP of Thiruvarur submitted a counter affidavit stating that 22 criminal cases had been registered against Barathi for various offenses. Although one case had been closed and at least nine others had been dropped, several cases were still pending.

The division bench of Justices S.S. Sundar and N. Senthilkumar observed that Barathi was an accused in a murder case and faced serious charges in a few other cases. It highlighted that Barathi was a history-sheeter and was currently on trial in at least 10 criminal cases.

Referring to the judgment of a division bench of the Bombay High Court in Arun Gulab Gavli Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others [1999], the high court said,

"We fully endorse the view expressed above...The grant of police protection to an individual at the cost of State cannot be granted as a matter of right".

The court emphasized that, in appropriate cases, it would order the protection of an individual's life and liberty. However, in this case, the petitioner had a criminal background.

"If a person invites a situation by his criminal or anti-social activities, protection merely on the basis of threat perception will be against public morality," court held. 

Therefore, court dismissed the writ petition. However, on the request of Barathi's counsel that he may be given protection at his cost, the court ordered that if he makes an application for protection at his cost, it may be considered on merits and in accordance with law.

Case Title: NT Barathi v. The District Collector and Another