The Allahabad High Court has declined a plea seeking armed Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) protection, holding that security cover cannot be granted merely on apprehensions without concrete material. The Division Bench made it clear that assessment of threat perception lies with the competent authorities, not the writ court.
The order came in WRIT - C No. 41622 of 2025, filed by Vikas Chaudhary and another petitioner against the Union of India and others .
Read also:- Bombay High Court Allows Single Mother to Change Daughter’s Name, Caste in School Records
Background of the Case
The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a direction to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, to provide them armed CRPF protection. They claimed that they were facing a grave and persistent threat to their lives.
According to the petition, three FIRs had earlier been lodged by them:
- Case Crime No. 185 of 2020, relating to alleged damage to their brick-kiln property.
- Case Crime No. 700 of 2020, concerning an allegedly false trust deed.
- Case Crime No. 173 of 2023, alleging hacking of their mobile phone.
On this basis, they argued that their lives were under imminent danger and sought enhanced central security cover .
However, the Court noted that the pleadings did not disclose any specific instance showing a direct or immediate threat to their lives. It also observed that apart from the persons named in the FIRs, no individual had been identified as having issued life threats.
Importantly, the Bench recorded that by an order dated August 6, 2023, the petitioners had already been granted police protection in the form of one security guard .
Read also:- Rajasthan High Court Refuses Relief to New Nursing Colleges, Says Counselling Cannot Be Reopened
Court’s Observations
Delivering the judgment, the Bench observed that threat perception is essentially a question of fact.
“The nature of threat perception and the liability to provide security has to be left to the authorities concerned,” the Court stated, adding that such matters are not for the writ court to determine under Article 226 of the Constitution .
The judges went further, remarking on a growing trend. They noted that provision of police security has increasingly become a “status symbol,” creating a privileged class at the expense of taxpayers’ money.
“In a country governed by the rule of law and democratic polity, a class of privileged persons should not be created by the State,” the Bench observed. The Court emphasized that public resources must be used fairly and transparently.
Read also:- Jharkhand HC Seeks Answers on 437 Custodial Deaths, Orders Home Secretary to Clarify Judicial
The judgment referred to earlier rulings, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramveer Upadhyay vs. R.M. Srivastava, where it was held that courts are not equipped to assess the gravity of threat perception. That responsibility rests with the authorities, including intelligence agencies.
The Bench also cited previous High Court decisions cautioning that private individuals should not be granted security at State expense unless there are compelling and transparent reasons.
“A personal enmity with others would not come within the parameters for assessing threat perception,” the Court quoted from earlier precedent, underlining that real and credible threat must be established.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Cuts Jail Term in ATM Cloning Case, Enhances Fine to ₹2 Lakh Each
Limits of Writ Jurisdiction
The Court made it clear that while exercising powers under Article 226, it cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the competent authority.
The judges noted that the petitioners had neither a statutory right nor a fundamental right to claim police protection. “Usually the right to claim police protection cannot be enforced in exercise of power under Article 226,” the Bench said .
Since the competent authority had already assessed the threat perception and granted one security guard, the Court found no ground to interfere.
The Decision
In conclusion, the Division Bench held that there was no justification to direct the authorities to provide armed CRPF protection to the petitioners.
“We are not inclined to issue any direction to the authorities concerned,” the Court stated.
The writ petition was dismissed. No order was passed as to costs .
Case Title: Vikas Chaudhary And Another vs Union of India And 4 Others
Case No.: WRIT - C No. 41622 of 2025
Decision Date: February 5, 2026
