‘Security Is Not a Status Symbol’: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Declines Advocate’s Plea for Protection, Says ‘Courts Have No Expertise to Assess Threat Perception’
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, dismissed a petition seeking continuation of personal security for an advocate, observing that courts are not equipped to assess individual threat perceptions. The Bench, comprising Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, pronounced the judgment on March 13, 2025, after considering a sealed threat assessment report submitted by the authorities. The Court recorded that no credible threat existed against the petitioner and directed that all interim orders regarding security be vacated.
The Court held that the responsibility for threat perception and security assessment lies exclusively with competent authorities and security agencies, concluding that there was no basis to interfere with the findings presented by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Special Branch, Jammu.
The petition, filed in 2017, arose from the petitioner’s request for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restore and continue the personal security officer (PSO) provided to him. The petitioner, a practicing advocate, contended that he had filed various public interest litigations related to the security of retired judges and court complexes, and on this basis, apprehended a threat to his life. The petitioner relied on a field report dated March 22, 2016, from the Senior Superintendent of Police (CID) Special Branch (SB) Jammu, which indicated a potential threat.
Following this, the petitioner was initially granted a PSO by an order dated April 8, 2017, for one month. This arrangement was extended on May 15, 2017, following further instructions from the police authorities. Subsequently, when the petitioner sought a continuation of this protection, the matter was brought before the Court. On June 22, 2017, the Court issued an interim direction, allowing the arrangement to continue pending further orders.
The record shows that there was a significant delay by the respondents in filing a reply, with their affidavit being submitted only on November 9, 2020. The petitioner’s reliance on interim relief continued during this period. The respondents later submitted that, according to a fresh threat assessment dated September 17, 2020, there was no specific threat to the petitioner warranting continued security cover.
The respondents argued that the petition lacked merit and should be dismissed, but the matter remained pending. On May 31, 2023, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of the petitioner’s counsel, resulting in the vacation of the interim direction. However, following an application for restoration, the petition was restored to its original number on July 14, 2023, although the interim direction was not reinstated at that time.
An additional development occurred when Ms. Veena Khanna filed an application seeking impleadment in the proceedings, raising allegations against the petitioner, including the submission of CCTV footage. While objections were filed by the petitioner disputing these claims, the Court limited its decision strictly to the security-related issue.
The Court observed that the security of individuals is provided at public expense and cannot be treated as a personal privilege or status symbol. It stated, “Security cover to any person is provided at the State expense, for which contribution is made by the tax payers, 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 the role of assessing threat perceptions belongs solely to competent security agencies. It observed, “The Court has no expertise to assess the threat perception of an individual and it is only the competent authorities on whose inputs, the threat perception of an individual is assessed and on the basis of said report, the security is provided to an individual.”
Referring to the sealed threat perception report submitted by the respondents pursuant to an earlier court direction dated March 3, 2025, the Court recorded, “As per the report which has been provided to this Court in a sealed cover, the petitioner does not have any threat perception and thus, there is no requirement of any security to be provided to the petitioner.”
The Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramveer Upadhyay v. R.M. Srivastava & Ors., 2015 SCC (13) 370, stating, “What exactly is his threat perception and whether the same is grave in nature, obviously will have to be left to be decided by the authorities including the authorities of the State or the Centre which may include even the Intelligence Bureau or any other authority concerned which is entitled to assess the threat perception of an individual.”
The Court further recorded, “The evaluation of threat perception is a factual question, it would be appropriate to fasten the responsibilities to the authorities responsible for security, as the Court would be in a predicament to determine the gravity of the threat without having necessary expertise.”
Additionally, it observed that the demand for security by private individuals often amounts to misuse of public resources. Referring to judicial precedent, the Court noted, “The practice of creating a privileged class on the State's expense, by using the taxpayers' money has to be deprecated.”
The Court also cited Hazi Rais v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2006 SCC OnLine All 621, observing, “The demand for security was not as much for the personal security but had ripened into a status symbol. It is enjoyed not as cathedral but as casino and, therefore, it would be duty of the high powered committee to review the security arrangements in a most objective, bona fide and honest manner.”
The Court dismissed the petition and all connected applications, recording, “The writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit along with all connected applications.”
The Court directed, “Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.”
The Court further directed that the records, including materials filed by the applicant Ms. Veena Khanna, be handed over to the Senior Additional Advocate General against proper receipt.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manik Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mrs. Monika Kohli, Senior Additional Advocate General, Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocate
Case Title: Sumit Nayyar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:J&KHC:11876
Case Number: OWP No. 989/2017
Bench: Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal
[Read/Download order]
