‘It’s the domain of field, security agencies’
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Sept 20: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that courts have no yardstick to assess the threat perception of any individual and the matter exclusively falls in the domain of field and security agencies.
The bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal was dealing with a petition filed by Vijay Sharma, Chief Organizer of Sewa Dal All India Congress Committee (J&K) Jammu challenging the orders passed by the Inspector General Police, Security J&K and Additional Director General of Police Jammu Zone besides seeking Personal Security Officer (PSO) in view of his status.
The earlier petition of Vijay Sharma was disposed off with the direction to the respondents to consider his representation for providing him the security cover on account of threat perception taking into account the CID report and allied material.
Pursuant to the order, the threat perception of the petitioner was assessed and by virtue of communication dated 02.09.2024 the Additional Director General of Police, Jammu Zone conveyed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jammu that there is no specific threat to the petitioner in district Jammu as per the field agencies.
In the instant petition, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is a Chief Organizer of Sewa Dal All India Congress Committee (J&K), Jammu and during election he has to go for election campaign not in Jammu district but in whole of the Jammu and Kashmir as well.
“Home Ministry has categorically said that security will be provided to each and every political worker irrespective of any party and since the petitioner belongs to a National Party, the rejection of the case for providing security on the ground that petitioner has no threat perception is total non-application of mind by the respondents and that too without taking into consideration the political scenario prevailing during the election time”, the counsel for the petitioner further submitted.
After hearing Advocate Rupinder Singh for the petitioner and Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli for the UT of J&K, High Court said, “the law is no more res integra that providing security to an individual or a political leader falls within the realm of security agencies after their threat perception is assessed by Security Review Coordination Committee”.
“This court has no mechanism to go into the question whether the threat perception has been rightly assessed or not. It is the domain of the security agencies to assess the threat perception of each individual or a political leader and on the basis of the inputs given by the field agencies the decision is taken by the competent authority”, High Court further said.
High Court said, “since threat perception of the petitioner has been assessed through the field agency and report reveals that there is no specific threat to the petitioner in district Jammu, this court do not find any fault with the decision taken by the competent authorities”, adding “the question whether a person or individual needs security cover and if so, what level of security is to be provided, cannot be gone into by the courts as it is for the empowered committee constituted by the Government which has to take a call on the issue”.
Justice Nargal made it clear that High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal over the recommendations of the Security Review Coordination Committee and cannot substitute its own opinion in place of the recommendations of the Committee.
“Since the threat perception has been assessed vis-a-vis District Jammu only and not to the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir where the elections are being held so this court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case directs the respondents to place the case of the petitioner afresh before the Security Review Coordination Committee to re-assess the threat perception”, High Court said, adding “direction shall not be construed as a precedent in other cases as this court has no domain or yardstick to go into the question vis-a-vis the threat perception of any individual or a political leader, which falls within the realm of field/security agencies”.
The post Courts have no yardstick to assess threat perception of any individual: HC appeared first on Daily Excelsior.