Skip to main content

Nobody can demand security as matter of right: SC

Emphasising that appraisal of threat perception was not its business, the Supreme Court Monday said no person can ask for security from the State as a matter of his right and that it was "primarily" for the police authorities to decide on its necessity.

"Nobody has a fundamental right to security...nobody can demand it as a matter of right. Nobody is entitled to security at state expenditure. We are not going to regulate grant of security to people. There is a competent authority to examine security threat perception," said a Bench of Justices T S Thakur and Vikramjit Sen.

The Bench said there were authorities to decide on who should be provided the security and if there was a miss, they will be answerable to the court. "This (security) cannot become a permanent feature. Nobody is entitled to it as a matter of right. It is based on threat perception, which is to be examined by the concerned agency. We are not here for examining threat perception," pointed out the Bench.

This Bench's view is different from the course taken by another SC Bench, which has called from all states details of persons, who have been provided VIP security and the criteria of providing it.

The court's observations Monday came as it heard an application by the Delhi Police to withdraw security cover for advocate Ajay Aggarwal. The apex court had in 2003 ordered the Police Commissioner to provide security to Aggarwal, who was a petitioner in the Taj Corridor scam case, in view of threats to him and his family members.

Additional Solicitor General Rakesh Khanna, appearing for the police, submitted that the threat perception had been reviewed and it was noted that Aggarwal and his family did not need security cover anymore. He said the security could not be withdrawn due to the SC order.

 Article referred:http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Nobody-can-demand-security-as-matter-of-right--SC/1199509/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more