H. Hasan Mohammed Jinnah vs The Director General of Police

B. Rajendran, J.—The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition seeking to issue a direction to the respondents to give police protection to him and his family members so as to enable them to live peacefully and perform social services assigned to the petitioner.

According to the petitioner, he was a former Additional Public Prosecutor (Co-ordination) and also a practicing advocate in the Madras High Court. It is stated that the petitioner acted as a Co-ordinator for important cases before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court and also the Supreme Court of India on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Government. The petitioner claims to have handled lot of sensitive and sensational cases that caught the headlines and made huge impact on the law and order situation of the State such as the Sarika Shah Eve Teasing Case, Coimbatore Bomb Blast Case etc., It is further claimed that the petitioner has been opposing the relief of bail made by the rebels and notorious elements which resulted in denial of bail to them. In view of such sensational and sensitive cases handled by the petitioner, there were frequent threat to his life and taking note of the high sensitive cases handled by him, police protection was granted to him by the respondents during the year 2009 which consists of three Armed guards and a police vehicle provided as security cover. According to the petitioner, on 24.05.2011, the security cover provided to him was withdrawn without taking note of the prevailing threats. Therefore, the petitioner sent a representation dated 06.06.2011 to the respondents to renew the police protection, but there was no response. It is further stated that the petitioner was appointed as the Regional Advisor (Asia-Pacific) and UNESCO Centre and the Good Will Ambassador (Asia-pacific) for International Human Rights Commission (IHRC). In such position, the petitioner handled intense human right issues across the Asia Pacific, including Sri Lankan Human Right Violations. The petitioner was also instrumental in inviting the international community to take necessary affirmative steps in the appropriate channels to push UN referendum as the only solution to end the genocide in the Asia Pacific countries. In this context, there were frequent threats received by the petitioner and the petitioner was also permitted to hold a gun for his personal security reasons. As the petitioner was attending many conferences, official meetings and travels widely to other States, he could not carry the gun on all such occasion. Therefore, he submitted a representation to the respondents again on 10.12.2013, followed by a reminder on 27.12.2013, but there was no response. While so, on 19.01.2013, the junior of the petitioner had borrowed his car and when he was travelling in the car, unidentified men followed the vehicle with deadly weapons and restrained the vehicle. In this context, the petitioner''s junior has given a complaint with J-1 Saidapet Police Station. This incident assumes significance especially when the petitioner, just prior to that date i.e., 18.01.2013, received a threatening call from a overseas mobile number. These incidents fortified his apprehension that he and his family may not be safe and secure. According to the petitioner, his movements are continuously watched by suspicious persons who are often spotted in the vicinity of his home, office and sometimes followed him in the vehicle. It is further submitted that since the petitioner belonged to the opposition party, his claim for providing security cover has not been considered by the respondents.

The learned learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the Order dated 05.11.2013 in MP No. 1 of 2013 in WP No. 27710 of 2013, wherein the Division Bench of this Court, having regard to the facts and circumstance involved in that case, directed the respondents to provide to the petitioners therein interim police protection atleast by two armed police personnel round the clock pending further orders.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the communication dated 04.06.2012 from UNESCO Centre addressed to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India wherein it is stated that the petitioner is dealing with sensitive and sensational cases and that the petitioner is also an UN election observer and requested to provide appropriate security cover to the petitioner and his family. On the strength of this communication received from UNESCO Centre, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents in this writ petition.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, relying on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, would contend that the State Security Review Committee, in the meeting held on 20.05.2011, assessed the prevailing security arrangements provided for the dignitaries. In the said meeting, it was decided to withdraw the security arrangements made to 34 protected persons, including the petitioner, on the basis of the report given by various intelligence agencies. The learned Additional Government Pleader further contended that the complaint given by the petitioner''s junior has been investigated by the Police Officials attached to J-1 Saidapet Police Station and ultimately the complaint was closed. Therefore, merely on the basis of the said incident, the petitioner cannot claim protection to his life and that of his family members. As the Police officials in this State are vigilant, the petitioner need not worry about his security and that of his family members. It is also pointed out that in and around the vicinity of the petitioner''s residence, police surveillance measures are regularly available for safeguarding the security of the petitioner. In any event, there is no need for giving 24 hours security to the petitioner especially when there is no specific threat from any quarters to the petitioner. As far as the letter dated 04.06.2012 sent by the UNESCO Centre to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, neither the Central Government nor the State Government have found any threat perception to the petitioner and till date there is no recommendation sent by the Central Government Agencies recommending any security cover to be provided to the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader would oppose this writ petition.

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. The short point for consideration in this writ petition is whether a direction can be issued by this Court to the respondents to provide police protection to the petitioner and his family members.

The petitioner is a former Public Prosecutor in this Court. No doubt, he had handled sensational and sensitive cases during the course of his tenure as a Public Prosecutor, including the Coimbatore Bomb Blast Case. Admittedly, police protection was granted to the petitioner during the period from 2009-2011 and it was withdrawn on 24.05.2011. According to the petitioner, there is an imminent threat to his life and that of his family members and therefore, he had sent several representations to the respondents, but they were not considered. In the meantime, the petitioner was appointed as the Regional Adviser (Asia-Pacific) and UNESCO Centre and the Good Will Ambassador (Asia-pacific) for International Human Rights Commission (IHRC), in which position, the petitioner said to have handled intense human right issues across the Asia Pacific, including Sri Lankan Human Right Violations. Therefore, UNESCO Centre, by communication dated 04.06.2012 addressed to Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India stated as follows:-

I am writing this to seek your assistance to provide security to Mr. Hasan Mohammed Jinnah and his family, based out of Chennai, TN, India.

As the regional advisor to UNESCO Centre '' Asia Pacific for Human rights and ICT, he is currently assigned to work on human rights issues plaguing different parts of the globe, including the Tamils in strife-torn Sri Lanka. This involves handling sensitive issues and controversial pockets of people, including being an UN election observer or going on fact-finding missions to countries infested with terrorist groups or housing organisations including in unlawful activities. This assignment is likely to place him and his family under threat.

We will be raising specific requests to specific countries, as and when he is visiting them. As India is his home country, I request you to provide security cover to Mr. Jinnah and his family and pass such orders that may be appropriate to implement this request, as soon as possible.

Kindly keep me posted on the steps taken from your end, at the earliest.

This letter has been relied on by the petitioner to fortify his submission that there is an imminent threat to his life and that of his family members. Further, the petitioner referred to an incident that took place on 19.01.2013 when his junior was driving his car and it was followed by unidentified men in a vehicle. The complaint given in this regard to J-1 Saidapet Police Station was closed after conducting an investigation.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent, it was stated in para No.6 as follows:-

It is further submitted that security was provided to the writ petitioner after 2011 by local police on specific need basis for his visits and tours. It is pertinent to note that whenever the petitioner participates in any public meeting or demonstrations, security was given to him on specific need basis.

Thus, it is evident from the counter affidavit that even after withdrawal of the security arrangements made to the petitioner on 24.05.2011, the respondents have provided security coverage to the petitioner on need basis. The averments in para-6 of the affidavit clearly indicate that the local police have been giving police protection to the petitioner on specific occasion instead of giving round the clock security.

In the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the Order dated 05.11.2013 in MP No. 1 of 2013 in WP No. 27710 of 2013, the Division Bench was pleased to issue a direction as follows:-

Considering the facts and circumstances and the peril faced by the said Dr. Ramadoss and Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss, who are political leaders of P.M.K. Party and the threat perception, which was noticed by the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the earlier writ petition viz., W.P. No. 21180 of 2013, due to Marakkanam and Dharmapuri incidents and having regard to the final report filed on 21.02.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Mylam Police Station, Villupuram District against 11 accused persons, who threaten to destroy the house of the said Dr. Ramadoss by using petrol-bomb, we are of the firm view that the said two persons viz., Dr. Ramadoss and Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss, are each entitled to get interim police protection atleast by two armed police personnel round-the-clock from 6.00 pm today pending further orders. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that as of now, the said two persons are at Chennai and their Chennai address is No.10, Tilak Street, T. Nagar, Chennai '' 600 017.

It is evident from the above decision of the Division Bench of this Court that having regard to the threat perception, interim police protection was granted to the petitioners therein. In this case, the petitioner has narrated certain sequence of events which cannot be summarily rejected by the respondents to provide police protection to him. The apprehension of the petitioner, to some extent, required to be taken note of by this Court. Further, admittedly, the respondents themselves, through the local police, providing security coverage to the petitioner on specific instances whenever the petitioner participate in meetings, public demonstration etc., When such being the position, taking note of the specific need of the petitioner, the respondents can be directed to give police protection in the light of the averments in para-6 of the counter. The security review committee might have felt that the petitioner need not be given 24 hours round-the clock security, however, it will not disentitle the petitioner to get police protection on specific need based security. Therefore, suffice it to say that the petitioners requirement to have security coverage has to be considered by the respondents on need basis instead of giving 24 hours round the clock police protection to him and his family members.

In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed directing the respondents to give necessary and adequate police protection to the petitioner on need basis whenever he attends any public demonstrations, meetings or undertakes travel to other Districts. No costs. Consequently, Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.