The Allahabad High Court has expressed strong dissatisfaction with the Uttar Pradesh Police's approach to citizen security, stressing that the preservation of human life must be the state's foremost concern.
Key Points
- Allahabad High Court criticises Uttar Pradesh Police for prioritising prosecution over citizen security.
- The court emphasises that saving human life should be the primary concern of the state.
- A Badaun resident sought police protection due to a land dispute and perceived threat to his life.
- The court found the police response to the petitioner's threat perception to be indifferent and inadequate.
- The court directed the SSP to outline specific security measures to protect the petitioner.
The Allahabad High Court has expressed dissatisfaction with Uttar Pradesh Police's approach to citizens' security, observing that saving human life must be the primary concern of the state, and not just bringing murderers to justice.
Court Criticises Police Response to Threat Perception
Hearing a writ petition filed by Nankaram, a resident of Badaun, a division bench comprising Justice J J Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena said the sensitivity of the law-and-order agencies to protect human life has "always been low and continues to be so".
The court made the observations while pulling up Badaun SSP Ankita Sharma over her affidavit filed in response to a writ petition by a man seeking police protection.
The petitioner had approached the SSP seeking protection as he apprehended a "severe" danger to his life from five persons over a family land dispute.
However, after he received an "indifferent" response from the police, he moved the high court seeking protection and the registration of an FIR against the respondents.
Hearing his plea on April 6, the high court had directed the SSP to file a personal affidavit outlining the steps taken to evaluate the petitioner's threat perception and his case for the provision of security.
Court Finds Affidavit 'Elusive'
On May 4, the high court perused the said affidavit and found it "elusive" because it merely detailed the origin of the dispute between the parties and the preventive action taken by the police under sections 170/126/135 of the BNSS against both sides.
The court noted that the understanding of the dispute was likely "entrusted to the wisdom of some 'Daroga' to fathom".
The affidavit filed by SSP Sharma also mentioned that an FIR was registered against the accused, a chargesheet had been filed, and beat constables were directed to patrol the village.
It concluded that the village was peaceful, and the core issue between the parties was merely a land partition and family enmity.
Emphasis on Prevention Over Retribution
Taking exception to these averments being presented as an adequate response to a life threat claim, the bench said, "The happening of an offence is one thing, the maintenance of peace another. But the threat perception alleged by the petitioner to his life is quite different."
"We find an indifferent stand by the senior superintendent of police as far as the threat perception placed by the petitioner is concerned," it said.
The bench added that if tomorrow the petitioner was shot or assaulted in some other manner by the respondents, the initiation of security proceedings under sections 170/126/135 of the BNSS will not bring him back to life.
Stressing that prevention is better than cure, the court said the 'cure' in this case is nothing but a retributive prosecution against the potential murderer or assailants.
"Punishing the offenders is completely different, as already remarked, and that, by itself, does not save a human life. It does only in theory by deterring future crimes, which experience dictates, hardly deters," the bench underscored.
Court Orders Further Action
Observing that the response of the SSP was "far below standard than what was expected", the bench directed her to file another affidavit, stating what security measures she has in mind to save the petitioner from some unfortunate happening, which, the court said, does not have a calendar or schedule.
Such steps would spare the court from the unpleasant task of issuing orders for the provision of security, etc., the bench said, as it listed the matter for the next hearing on May 13.
