JUDGMENT By the Court.—In this bunch of writ petitions broadly there are three kinds of cases. (A) The leading Writ Petition No. 5520 of 2006 (Gayur Hasan v. State of U.P. and others) has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding withdrawal of security from respondent No. 4 and to direct the respondents to arrest him. Similarly, in Writ Petition No. 41892 of 2007 (Mohd. Safi v. State of U.P. and others) a mandamus has been sought for withdrawing security provided to respondent No. 4. It is common ground in both these writ petitions that the respondent No. 4 therein are the persons of tainted character involved in criminal activities inasmuch, in Gayur Hasan (supra), the respondent No. 4 i.e. Meharban was wanted in a case under Section 302, IPC and though had not been arrested yet was provided security guard. Similarly, Lakhpati Singh (respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 41892 of 2007) is also said to be an anti-social element but on the strength of an order, he has obtained from this Court in a writ petition, has obtained security and strengthened thereby is misusing besides harassing the petitioner. (B) The second set of writ petitions are those where a mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to provide the facility of gunner/security at the cost of Government i.e. free of cost or on payment of nominal cost etc. (C) The third set of writ petitions are those where security was earlier provided but having been withdrawn for one or the other reason, it has been prayed that the order of withdrawal be quashed and the respondents be directed to provide security as was already granted and/or to provide higher level of security. 2. It would be interesting to notice at this stage that in the third category of the writ petitions all the writ petitions have been filed by the persons who are or were holding political positions like Member of Legislative Assembly or Member of Parliament and some of them were also ministers or otherwise are high positioned political persons. Some of the writ petitions have been filed by the elected members of other local bodies, current or former, and some are by liquor contractor or big businessman etc. 3. Some of the writ petitions have been filed by the elected members of other local bodies, current or former, and some are by liquor contractor or big businessman etc. 3. Though on the first flush, all the three sets of cases appear to be slightly different but considering the common pivotal issue involved therein, all were clubbed together by the Court since it found that it would be expedient to consider the wider question in the context of the matter of providing security or expediency of continuing with the gunner or security personnel with individuals considering the facts that in many of the cases even the persons who have criminal antecedents involved in heinous crimes got security personnel at the cost of Government. In many of the cases security persons were available to the persons enjoying political influence and that too at the cost of State exchequer i.e. tax payer’s cost. 4. Virtually this Court considering the astounding facts has to observe that acquiring the facility of gunner/security personnel has become a fashion denoting status symbol and that too at the cost of compromising security of ordinary person for whom actually the entire system owe its duty. 5. In this background a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Imtiyaz Murtaza and Hon’ble Amar Saran, JJ. On 25.5.2006 passed a detailed order requiring the State of U.P. to submit a report indicating the number of persons who have been provided security in the last one year, the reasons for security given in each case, the period for which security was given, whether any payment has been taken for providing security, if required, under the Government Order for one or more security personnel, the basis for providing additional security and whether there has been periodical reviews of the need for security by the committee as provided by the Government Order etc. 6. Various orders were passed from time to time subsequently in the matter and it is not necessary to refer all such orders at this stage to avoid bulkness. Suffice it to say that this Court found a large number of cases where the security was provided to ineligible persons on the consideration of political patronage and, therefore, directions were issued for withdrawal of security from such persons. Suffice it to say that this Court found a large number of cases where the security was provided to ineligible persons on the consideration of political patronage and, therefore, directions were issued for withdrawal of security from such persons. It was also noticed that in a large number of cases where the security was provided on payment but the actual payment was not realised from the person concerned, influenced by his position or the political or administrative influence he could exercise, and, therefore, under the directions of this Court the authorities were compelled to realise such amount and it was ultimately informed to the Court that as a matter of fact several crores of rupees were realised from such persons. 7. Regarding the working of the committee constituted by the Government for recommending or grant of security, this Court also noticed several short comings and irregularities. Appropriate orders were issued deprecating such practice/procedure. This Court also initially noticed in its order dated 27.2.2007 that the Government has constituted a High Level Committee consisting of Secretary, Home Department, Government of U.P. as Chairman, Additional Director General (Security) and Additional Director General (Law & Order) as members to look into the eligibility, validity etc. of the persons granted security. It also issued certain directions to high powered committee or the State Government to lay down clear and cogent criteria as to what constitute a real and life threat perception at a point of time justifying for security personnel to an individual and review the matter periodically. 8. The constitution of High Level Committee was subsequently altered. Presently, as also stated in para 4 of the affidavit filed on behalf of State of U.P. in the leading case of Gayur Hasan (supra) sworn on 22.7.2008 by Sri Madan Kishore Srivastava, Deputy Secretary, Department of Home, U.P. Lucknow, the high powered committee constituted of Principal Secretary (Home), Director General of Police and Additional Director General of Police (Security). 9. It is also stated in para 8 thereof that no security at present has been provided to any person who is not entitled for the same. Some of the authorities are provided security by virtue of their official capacity holding high position in the State including the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court. 9. It is also stated in para 8 thereof that no security at present has been provided to any person who is not entitled for the same. Some of the authorities are provided security by virtue of their official capacity holding high position in the State including the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court. However, in para 9 of the affidavit it is admitted that there are 250 persons who have been provided security on account of their official capacity either as sitting or Ex. M.L.A., M.P., M.L.C., Mayor and Chairperson of the Zila Panchayat who have got criminal antecedents. 33 persons, as stated in para 10 of the affidavit, are provided security being either witness or pairokar of the cases involving heinous crimes and about 115 persons have been provided security pursuant to the orders passed by this Court or Apex Court or even by the subordinate Courts. In para 12 it is said that categorised security has been provided to 89 persons out of which 9 are with Z plus security, 10 are with Z category security, 34 are with Y category and 36 are with X category of security. Besides, 10 more persons have been provided ad interim categorised security and the list of those persons shows names of Sri Tahir Abbas, M.P. Sultanpur, Sri Bhism Shankar Tiwari @ Kushal Tiwari, M.P., Khalilabad (Sant Kabir Nagar), Sri Dhananjay Singh, M.L.A., Rari, Jaunpur, Sri Kunwar Sarwaraj Singh, M.P., Bareilly, (all are with Y category security), Sri D.P. Singh, M.L.A., Sahaswan, Badaun, Smt. Umlesh Yadav, M.L.A., Badaun, Sri Chandra Prakash Misra @ Matiyari, M.L.A., Sultanpur, Sri Jagpal Singh, M.L.A., Harora, Saharanpur (all are with X category security) and Sri Naresh Agrawal, Ex. M.L.A., Sri Narendra Kumar Kashyap, M.L.C., Ghaziabad (with Z category security). 10. Learned Advocate General has also made a statement that except of what has been stated in the said affidavit no other person who is not eligible and entitled for gunner/security at individual level has been provided the said facility at all. 11. M.L.A., Sri Narendra Kumar Kashyap, M.L.C., Ghaziabad (with Z category security). 10. Learned Advocate General has also made a statement that except of what has been stated in the said affidavit no other person who is not eligible and entitled for gunner/security at individual level has been provided the said facility at all. 11. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that in respect to the second and third kind of writ petitions, as stated above, it would be appropriate that the High Level Committee be directed to look into the grievances of the petitioners, if the petitioners approach the said committee within three months from today, and it pass appropriate orders giving reasons and communicate to the concerned parties. It would be open to the High Level Committee to look into individual cases of the petitioners as to whether they are entitled for security under the existing Government Order or for continuance of security where it has been withdrawn and the petitioners will have an opportunity to explain their case before the High Level Committee. 12. The learned Advocate General had no objection to this request and submitted that the cases of the petitioners, if they approach the High Level Committee, would be scrutinised and considered by the said committee in accordance with law expeditiously and in any case within such time as provided by this Court. 13. In the circumstances and considering the entire facts and circumstances we find that it would be of no use to keep these writ petitions pending before this Court and instead the same may be disposed of finally permitting the petitioners to approach the High Level Committee of the State Government by making an appropriate representation within three months from today and in case such a representation is made by the petitioners, the High Level Committee shall look into the matter objectively and pass reasoned orders considering the justification with respect to the request of the petitioners for security personnel/gunner in accordance with law including various Government Orders applicable in this regard and thereafter shall communicate its order accordingly to the State Government as well as the petitioners. In case they found that the petitioners are justified in requesting for security or retention of security or continuance of security, the State Government shall give due weightage to such recommendation and pass appropriate order accordingly unless it has reasons to disagree with the same and in that case it would be open to the State Government to pass a reasoned order taking a contrary view to the recommendation made by the High Level Committee. We make it clear that in case any order has already been passed by any authority at the district level or above including the State Government for withdrawing or discontinuing with the facility of gunner to the petitioners, such order would not come in the way of authorities concerned to comply with this order as directed above and it would be open to the High Level Committee to examine the matter without being influenced by such orders and in case the State Government pass a fresh order pursuant to the recommendation of the High Level Committee and pursuant to this judgment, such order shall have the effect of revocation of any earlier order to the extent it is inconsistent thereto. We also make it clear that the exercise of scrutiny at the level of High Level Committee and thereafter appropriate order of the State Government would not take more than four months from the date representation is made by the petitioners pursuant to this judgment. All these writ petitions are, therefore, finally disposed of with the direction as aforesaid. 14. Before parting, however, we find it obligatory on our part to record our dissatisfaction and anguish on the system of providing gunners/security personnels to individuals in the manner it has been implemented while the entire State is reeling under a very difficult law and order situation, not of ordinary kind but of high risk due to large scale terrorist and other activists movement and operations. The State is under a constitutional obligation to provide adequate security to each and every individual resident irrespective of his caste, creed, religion, status, position etc. Life of the most ordinary person is equally important as that of a person holding a high position in the State. We cannot treat ordinary people like ginny pigs whose death only results in number but it is a loss to the nation. Life of the most ordinary person is equally important as that of a person holding a high position in the State. We cannot treat ordinary people like ginny pigs whose death only results in number but it is a loss to the nation. Every individual, howsoever, ordinary man he is, is an asset to the State. It is the most pious and solemn obligation of the State to take all possible steps to protect him. The State must inspire and instil full confidence in every individual that his life and liberty is secured from all kinds of scrupulous activities and he can enjoy his constitutional right enshrined under Article 21 without any extra risk, fear etc. The population of the State of U.P. when is already exceeding 20 crores, the number of people employed in security forces namely Police Force is extremely inadequate. As we are informed the entire police force in the State of U.P. has less than 2 lacs of people. Meaning thereby on every 1000 and more persons only one police personnel is available to take care of their security. In such circumstances, if the State withdraw a high number of security personnels for the purpose of providing individual security cover that would be like putting the common and ordinary man at enhanced risk to his life and liberty at the cost of individual security. This can neither be appreciated nor is consistent with the constitutional scheme which treats every individual equal so far as the question of his life and liberty is concerned. Even a little Indian, as said by Hon’ble Krishna Iyer, J. is entitled to be treated at par with the mightiest one. The individual security may be necessary in a very few exceptional cases but it cannot be at the cost of collective security of the common man. 15. Moreover, irrespective of any reason whatsoever, if a person has indulged in criminal activities and thereby has enhanced perception of threat to his life and liberty, he himself is responsible for the same, and cannot look to the State to provide him separate security at the cost of common man when he himself is responsible for enhancing threat perception due to his anti-social activities. Whatever position an individual occupy in our democratic system, if he is engaged in anti social criminal activities, in our view, there is no justification to provide him security at the cost of tax payer society and common people of the State. His criminal activities are against the society. It is inconceivable that such a person shall be provided extra security at individual level to ensure that such activities at his level may continue with impunity. This in fact amounts to an encouragement to anti-social criminal elements to go ahead with such criminal activities and also enjoy an edge over his counter parts by obtaining State’s security cover at the cost of common man. 16. Similarly, the mere fact that a person is elected to hold an office is not sufficient to provide him individual security since he is a representative of people and he cannot be said to have threat perception to his life from those people who have elected him unless there is something more than that. Spending very huge amount for maintaining individual security of a so called few privileged persons is an unnecessary and unwarranted burden on the public exchequer which ultimately falls on the shoulder of tax payers and consume a hefty sum from the public exchequer which otherwise could have been utilised for betterment of the security forces by providing them sophisticated arms, ammunitions and other articles of their use so that they may tackle with the threat to the State in the hands of anti-social and anti-national elements including terrorist in a more effective manner which would also generate better confidence in the people qua their security perception and would also create a better atmosphere of peace. 17. Every common man has a right to live peacefully and of undue apprehension of criminal and other illegal activities. It is the constitutional obligation of the State to take care thereof in a more effective and objective manner by not only taking appropriate steps thereto but to execute the same also with full devotion and honesty. 18. In our view it may be appropriate for the Government to look into the aspect of individual security afresh in the light of the above observations and if necessary it may review/revise its policy by laying down appropriate fresh guidelines accordingly. 18. In our view it may be appropriate for the Government to look into the aspect of individual security afresh in the light of the above observations and if necessary it may review/revise its policy by laying down appropriate fresh guidelines accordingly. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary, State of U.P., Lucknow, Principle Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow and Director General of Police, U.P. for its compliance. The Registrar General is directed to sent a copy of this judgment to the aforesaid authorities forthwith. 19. With the aforesaid directions all these writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ————