In the case of Srikant Tyagi v. Union of India A writ petition was filed to order the State Government to continue providing Politician Srikant Tyagi with government-paid security guards as mandated by Government Orders dated 20-11-2018 and dated 31-01-2019, as well as to order the authority in question to continue providing security for him and his wife, Anu Tyagi. According to information supplied following a review of the Local Intelligence Unit’s life risk reports, there are 3 government-paid gunners. Political competitor Srikant Tyagi has received threats from people like Vinay Tyagi, a former Block Pramukh of the Samajwadi Party with a 46-case criminal record. Tyagi was hurt while commuting from Ghaziabad to Lucknow in a high-speed truck collision. Tyagi’s life is in danger, according to the Ghaziabad Local Intelligence Unit. Four gunners were supplied as protection for Tyagi and his wife at taxpayer cost; however, on August 9, 2022, that security was removed. According to Tyagi, the government is not giving them enough security, and when a threat is perceived, inaction is arbitrary, unjustified, and in violation of the law. He and his wife are trying to get security at the expense of the public purse.
Analysis of Court Decision
While dismissing the appeal, the division bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court expressed their opinion that providing personal security would encourage such a person’s illegal conduct to the disadvantage of society as a whole.
The District Level Security Committee’s recommendation that security be given for one month with the option of an additional three months was upheld by the court. The State Government may only grant additional extensions after receiving explicit recommendations. Every month, the Committee conducts a security evaluation while taking danger perception into account. The State Government emphasises that no security should be given to anybody involved in criminal activity or who worries about security being misused.
According to the court, offering personal security would encourage criminal activity and be detrimental to society. A person who chooses violence above respect for human life has no right to ask the government for special treatment. They are the ones who perceive risks, and the state cannot guarantee their safety. The appeal for prolonged personal security filed by Srikant Tyagi and his wife was denied by the court.
CASE NAME – Srikant Tyagi v. Union of India, Writ C No. 17934 of 2023