Introduction:

In the case of M.K. Aravindakshan and Anr. v. M.R. Pradeep and Ors. (WA No. 1866 of 2023, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 508), the Kerala High Court delivered a significant judgment clarifying the scope of police protection granted in civil disputes, particularly highlighting that such protection under the writ jurisdiction cannot be mechanically extended in the absence of a genuine law-and-order situation, and the ruling underscores the need to balance individual rights with the effective allocation of limited police resources. The case arose from a civil dispute concerning a prescriptive easement and injunction before the Munsiff Court, where the petitioners sought police assistance to enforce their rights regarding closing a gate on their property. While their counterclaim for police aid had been dismissed by the civil court, they approached a Single Bench seeking protection, which was granted. Aggrieved by this, the party respondents filed a writ appeal challenging the order, contending that there was no apprehension of serious law-and-order consequences justifying deployment of police personnel. The matter attracted the attention of a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, which undertook a thorough examination of the parameters for issuing police protection under Article 226 of the Constitution, taking into account both constitutional principles and practical considerations regarding police administration and resource allocation.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellants, represented by Senior Counsel Santhosh Mathew along with a team including S.K. Premraj, C. Anilkumar, V. Saritha, K.V. Sudheer, P.M. Manash, Reenu Kurian, Aadil Nazarudeen, Jain Varghese, A.A. Mohammed Nazir, and Yamini Gopalakrishnan, argued that the Single Bench had rightly granted police protection to ensure that the petitioners could exercise their property rights without interference, stressing that in certain civil disputes, particularly those involving physical barriers such as gates, there can be immediate confrontations that threaten peace and safety, and the writ of mandamus under Article 226 is available precisely to prevent infringement of legally recognized rights when alternate remedies may be ineffective or insufficient to prevent harm. They contended that the petitioners’ apprehension was genuine and that police assistance was necessary to prevent potential escalations, asserting that private parties are entitled to seek state aid to safeguard their lawful rights, particularly when enforcement in ordinary civil courts may be slow or inadequate, and that in the interests of justice, the Court should consider practical necessity in addition to formal law-and-order assessments. Conversely, the respondents, represented by Dr. Thushara James – Senior Government Pleader, K.S. Frijo, Aravind Ajith, and Gigeesh Babu, argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature, arising from differences regarding property usage, and that there was no credible threat to public order or law-and-order situation warranting deployment of police resources. They emphasized that routinely granting police protection in civil disputes without establishing an imminent threat misallocates scarce police personnel, diverts attention from genuine law-and-order duties, and creates a precedent whereby civil disagreements could be escalated unnecessarily into state enforcement matters, thereby stretching police resources and undermining administrative efficiency. The respondents further submitted that the existence of alternate remedies under the Code of Civil Procedure, including invoking Order XXXIX Rule 2A or Section 151, meant that the petitioners had statutory avenues to enforce their civil rights without the exceptional relief of police assistance through writ jurisdiction, and that courts must carefully consider whether the prerequisites for issuing a writ of mandamus, particularly the presence of a jurisdictional fact establishing a law-and-order threat, were met before issuing such directions.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

The Kerala High Court, through the Division Bench, noted that police protection under civil procedure law and police protection ordered by way of writ of mandamus under Article 226 are distinct mechanisms, and that the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must be exercised only when the factual and legal prerequisites are satisfied. Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji emphasized that the existence of a law-and-order threat is a jurisdictional fact that must be established before a writ directing police assistance can be granted. The Court observed that in the present case, the dispute between the parties concerned the closure of a gate on private property and was essentially a civil dispute relating to prescriptive easement and injunction, and that there was no apprehension of serious public disorder or threat to communal peace that would justify extraordinary police intervention. Highlighting the practical aspects of policing, the Bench remarked that the police force operates with limited resources and attends to multiple emergent duties, and routinely ordering police protection without establishing serious law-and-order concerns diverts attention and manpower from areas with genuine law-and-order issues, thereby affecting public interest. The Court further explained that where alternate remedies exist, such as civil court procedures under the CPC, they must be considered before issuing mandamus, and that the availability of statutory remedies such as Order XXXIX Rule 2A or Section 151 may provide adequate avenues to address property disputes without burdening police machinery. Taking into account these factors, the Court concluded that the Single Bench had erred in granting police protection to the petitioners, since no jurisdictional fact demonstrating a threat to public order had been made out. Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgment granting police protection and restored the matter to the Single Bench to ascertain whether invoking a writ of mandamus or alternate remedies would be appropriate in the circumstances, emphasizing the need for judicial restraint, proper evaluation of jurisdictional facts, and balance between individual rights and the public interest in effective deployment of police resources. The ruling reiterates that extraordinary reliefs such as police assistance cannot be automatically granted in private civil disputes without assessing the nature of the threat and the availability of alternate remedies, and reinforces the principle that courts must safeguard public resources while ensuring rights are enforced through appropriate legal channels, maintaining both administrative efficiency and constitutional propriety.