Top

Bombay HC raps govt's new' policy on police protection

A few months ago, the HC asked the state government to review its police protection policy and draft a new policy.

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Tuesday rapped the state government for making minor changes in the police protection policy and showing it as a new policy. The court also rapped the state government when the latter’s counsel informed that police protection will not be given to people with a criminal background as any threat to their lives was a consequence of their own actions.

A division bench of Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice M.S. Sonak was hearing a petition filed against persons who avail police protection but do not pay money to the government in lieu of the same.

A few months ago, the HC asked the state government to review its police protection policy and draft a new policy. The court also noted that the state was following the year 2000 policy and the same needed to be reviewed as 17 years were already over.

Accordingly, chief public prosecutor Abhinandan Vagyani informed the court that state authorities had consulted with the advocate general and additional commissioner of police Mumbai and then come up with a proposal revising the police protection policy. He further informed the court that the state was not going to extend security to those with criminal
backgrounds.

The court was irked hearing this and said that this meant that the state believed that those who had a criminal background did not have a right to a safe life.

“What nonsense is this? Can anyone come and kill them?” the court said. The court rejected the state government’s new proposal saying that the authorities had not applied their mind to it.

“You just changed a few lines in the old 2000 policy. It is vague and absolute nonsense. If this has been done after consulting with senior police and legal officers, if this is the decision of your officers, then God save the public,” the court said. The court asked the advocate general to appear at the next hearing.

Next Story