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 He said the security could not be withdrawn due to the SC order.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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more