Inherently Unfair: Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs DGP To File Affidavit Qua Policy Providing Police Protection For Private Citizens
The Punjab and Haryana High Court noted that police protection was being granted to citizens, if they make the requisite payment, in terms of the State Security Policy.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the Director General of Police, Punjab to file an affidavit detailing the policy qua providing police personnel for personal security of private citizens.
The Court held that it was “inherently unfair” for the financially well-off individuals to receive police protection simply because they can afford it thereby creating “a two-tiered justice system that privileges the wealthy over the vulnerable.” The Bench remarked, “In a society that values equality, access to public services, including law enforcement, should be based on need and risk, not economic status.”
A Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar stated, “When only those with the financial means can afford additional security, it exacerbates existing inequalities and undermines the principle that all individuals are entitled to the same level of protection under the law. This not only fosters resentment and division but also suggests that wealth equates to greater worth, which undermines the idea of justice as a universal right.”
Advocate PS Punia represented the Petitioners, while Additional AG Subhash Godara appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petition was filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), by the Petitioners. They sought relief from alleged harassment by police personnel assigned to the Respondent who had been granted police protection. The Petitioners contended that the Respondent had used this police protection to intimidate them and prevent access to disputed property.
The Petitioners argued that an inquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police had already determined that the dispute was civil in nature. Despite this, the Respondent, being financially well-off, had secured armed police protection, while the Petitioners had been denied similar protection.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court took note of the official communication from the Additional Director General of Police and expressed concern over the policy that allows financially capable individuals to obtain police protection by making advance payments, stating that such a system creates inequality in access to law enforcement.
“This Court has observed that the police protection is being granted to citizens, if they make the requisite payment, in terms of the State Security Policy. It is inherently unfair for the financially well-off individuals to receive police protection simply because they can afford it, as this creates a two-tiered justice system that privileges the wealthy over the vulnerable. In a society that values equality, access to public services, including law enforcement, should be based on need and risk, not economic status,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court directed the Director General of Police, Punjab, to submit an affidavit addressing the following points within four weeks from the Order:
- “The comprehensive policy qua providing police personnel for personal security of private citizen. It is further directed that the latest policy in this regard also be annexed with the affidavit.
- The Standard Operating Procedure, if any, with respect to the district police chiefs deploying police personnel for security of private individuals.
- The officer(s) authorized to grant police protection, on payment or otherwise.
- The criteria for appraising a threat perception in order to determine whether police personnel are required to be provided from battalion and district.
- The appointment of any nodal officers for periodic reassessment, and the prescribed timeline for the same.
- The number of police personnel, including their battalions and districts, that have been deployed towards providing security to private citizens as well as the number of protectees.
- Also indicate whether any discretionary power vests in the Incharge, Security, Punjab or District Police Chiefs to provide security to private citizens, by deviating from the policy.”
Accordingly, the High Court adjourned the matter to February 25th, 2025.
Cause Title: Baljinder Kaur & Anr. v. State Of Punjab & Ors. [CRM-M-6573-2025 (O&M)]
