In an interim application in a criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed before the Allahabad High Court by S. Vignesh Shishir, a Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) worker from Karnataka, prominently known for filing dual citizenship petitions against Rahul Gandhi, Leader of Opposition, Lok Sabha, a Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Zafeer Ahmad refrained from passing any specific direction regarding the provision of Z+ security to the applicant but expected his right to life and personal liberty to be ensured.
The written instructions of the Union of India stated that, considering certain developments and the applicant’s representation, his request for Z+ security was being considered and examined afresh by the competent authority, even though the same had not been recommended earlier in the absence of any specific threat. It was also stated that necessary action would be taken upon receipt of the Central Security Agency’s report. The Ministry of Home Affairs advised the Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, and Delhi Police to suitably address the security concerns of the applicant based on the local threat perceptions. The Union asserted that the competent authority would pass an appropriate order at the earliest and that the applicant would be informed thereof before consequential steps are taken, requesting 4 weeks’ time for the same.
s. Vignesh Shishir submitted that when he attends Court proceedings in India, he is provided ample security, but only one P.S.O of CRPF armed with a pistol when he does not attend any proceedings or remains alone. He requested that at least such security as is provided for attending court proceedings may be provided to him in light of Article 21 till any appropriate decision is taken.
Considering the arguments, the Court stated that the competent agency that provides security to the applicant while attending court proceedings would know about the threat perception being faced by him and said that they may take appropriate measures before taking a final decision on the applicant’s representation, since every person has fundamental rights under Article 21. The Court refrained from passing any direction since the subject matter was under consideration before the competent authority, but expressed its expectation that the right to life and personal liberty of a citizen is ensured in the final decision.
