ARVIND KHANNA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by procedure established by law. This guarantee given to a citizen of this country as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India does include the State to protect its citizens from known and genuine threats from those who are out to eliminate a citizen of this country by maintaining law and order. However, is it for the citizen to perceive the dimensions of threat extended to him and accordingly demand as a matter of right protection from the State by providing him a security cover or that such a matter is to be determined by the State, is the question that has been mooted in this petition filed by Shri Arvind Khanna who seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari so as to quash order dated 7.10.1998 (Annexure P-2) whereby the security cover provided to him has been withdrawn. Necessarily embedded in the question as framed above is further the question as to whether threat to life perceived by the petitioner is real or that the same is hereby a flight of his imagination and demand thus, made is more in fashion of day to have security cover as a matter of status symbol. Before, however, the questions posed above are determined, it shall be useful to give a brevity facts culminating into filing of the present petition.

(2.) The petitioner clams to be a social welfare activist and with a view to do something concrete for public good, he is said to have established a charitable trust under the name and style of Khanna Foundations. The Trust is said to be registered with Government of India and its income is exempted from the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Trust was created to feed poor students and start students homes and hostels, to help and assist poor and deserving people in all possible ways as also to make donations to other public charitable foundations/institutions recognised under Section 80-G of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner further claims that because of public image and growing popularity over the years, he was approached by ruling political party in the State of Punjab and was persuaded to join Akali Dal (B). For his strong ideas vis-a-vis public cause, his rapidly growing image in the pubic and also being affluent even much before joining the Youth Akali Dal (B) as its General Secretary, he has been getting serious threats to life and liberty through telephone calls and numerous letters. The matter regarding his personal security was considered by a Committee constituted by the Department of Home. The Committee having examined the matter was unanimous in its opinion that the petitioner was required to be provided with a security cover and resultantly vide order dated 11.9.1998 that Additional Director General of Police Security, provided security cover to him. It is further the case of the petitioner that he was primarily concerned with the public good rather than any personal achievements. On joining Akali Dal Youth, he had an occasion to experience approach, policies and functioning of the party and his expectations were shattered when he found that issues for which Akalis made sacrifices were together forgotten and ignored when they came to power. All these factors collectively made the petitioner to leave Youth Akali (B) on 21.9.1998. The decision of the petitioner to leave Youth Akali Dal (B) became an issue in the party as the matter and views expressed by him were published in number of newspapers and so much so as a consequence of the petitioner's decision Youth Akali Dal (B) stood disbanded. In the wake of repercussions arising from the petitioner's decision, the Government purely out of political vendetta and to show its resentment got an order passed from the Additional D.G.P. Security, Punjab withdrawing security of the petitioner.

(3.) Inasmuch as no reasons were at all given while passing impugned order Annexure P-2, while withdrawing the security earlier provided-to the petitioner and in view of the averments made in the petition the Court issued notice to the respondents. Pursuant to the said notice the respondents have entered defence and seriously opposed the cause of the petitioner. Reply has been filed by way of an affidavit of Shri S.S. Virk, IPS, Inspector General of Police, Security, respondents No. 2. It has inter alia been pleaded therein that security wing is concerned with threat perception of the individuals and not with the political activities. The assertion of the petitioner that the Committee had decided to provide security cover to him has been denied. It is denied that Committee had ever held a meeting and selected the petitioner for providing him with the security. In fact petitioner had submitted an application requesting for security due to his activities and movements in Punjab due to which he was provided 1 Head Constable and 4 Constables by ADGP Security personally. The case had not been put up before the Committee which decides about categories of different protectees. The allegations of the petitioner that security has been withdrawn since he had left the Akali Dal (B) has also been denied. It has further been mentioned that the security to the petitioner was withdrawn as he was found to be staying in Delhi whereas the security was provided to him at his Chandigarh address. He shifted security to Delhi and started misusing it. It has then been pleaded that the petitioner had obtained security by misrepresenting the facts. While demanding security he projected that he was a resident of Chandigarh House No. 313, Sector 9-D, and there was a serious security threat to him. In an earlier letter he had conveyed his intention to start big industrial ventures in Punjab like establishment of Sugar Mill, a brewery in district Ropar, development of 2500 acres of land which he had already purchased on the outskirts of Chandigarh where he was planning to start developing in phases starting at the end of the year 1996. After providing security, normal procedure is that security provided to the protectee is checked by deputing officer to verify whether the security provided is actually being used for the security purposes only. In the present case Sub Inspector Sucha Singh had gone for routine checking of the security and after visiting the residential address given by the petitioner, it was found that there was no security personnel and the duty at the gate was being performed by some private agency. A photocopy of the report submitted by Sub Inspector Sucha Singh has been annexed as Annexure R-2 with the written statement. On the report of the Sub Inspector office deputed Shri Mohd. Mustafa, IPS, D.I.G. of Police to know the whereabouts of the security personnel deployed with the petitioner. In his report Shri Mustafa informed that the entire security of the petitioner was based in Delhi. The petitioner's business as well as area of activity were also at Delhi and that he has also manipulated extra man power by personally contacting various police officers in an unauthorised manner. The report aforesaid has been annexed with the written statement as Annexure R-3. It has been averred that the petitioner had sought security, for industrial projects but no project of his had matured. It is in the wake of facts and circumstances referred to above that the case of the respondents is that the security earlier provided to the petitioner was withdrawn. Petitioner has filed replication denying assertions made by respondent No. 2 in the written statement. Respondents have also placed on record office order dated 4.12.1998 written by Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence, Punjab which reads as follows:-