Allahabad High Court Pulls Up UP Police Over Citizen Safety, Says Saving Human Lives Must Be State’s Top Priority
By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court has made sharp observations on the functioning of law enforcement agencies in Uttar Pradesh, stressing that protecting human life should be the foremost responsibility of the state, not merely prosecuting offenders after a crime has already taken place.
Hearing a petition filed by a Badaun resident who sought police protection over threats to his life, the High Court strongly criticised the response of the local police administration and expressed concern over what it described as a continuing lack of sensitivity toward public safety.
A division bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena remarked that the attitude of law-and-order agencies toward safeguarding human life has historically remained weak and, according to the court, “continues to be so.”
The strong remarks came during proceedings in a writ petition filed by Nankram, a resident of Badaun, who alleged that he was facing a serious threat to his life from five individuals due to an ongoing family land dispute.
According to the petition, Nankram had earlier approached the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Badaun, requesting protection after fearing possible violence from the accused persons.
However, dissatisfied with what he described as an indifferent response from the police, he later moved the High Court seeking immediate protection as well as registration of an FIR against the private respondents.
During an earlier hearing on April 6, the High Court directed the SSP of Badaun to personally file an affidavit detailing the steps taken to assess the petitioner’s threat perception and the measures adopted to ensure his safety.
However, when the matter came up again on May 4, the bench found the affidavit submitted by SSP Ankita Sharma inadequate and evasive.
The court observed that instead of directly addressing the petitioner’s apprehension regarding danger to his life, the affidavit largely focused on the background of the family dispute and the preventive proceedings initiated under Sections 170, 126, and 135 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The bench also made a pointed remark that the task of understanding the dispute appeared to have been casually left to the “wisdom of some Daroga.”
The affidavit further stated that an FIR had already been lodged against the accused individuals, a charge sheet had been filed, and local beat constables had been instructed to patrol the village regularly.
It also mentioned that the village remained peaceful and characterised the matter as essentially a family property dispute involving partition and longstanding enmity.
The High Court, however, was clearly dissatisfied with this explanation.
Taking exception to the police treating these measures as sufficient, the bench observed that maintaining peace in a village and assessing a specific threat to an individual’s life are entirely different issues.
“The happening of an offence is one thing, the maintenance of peace another, but the threat perception alleged by the petitioner to his life is quite different,” the court observed, adding that the stand taken by the SSP reflected indifference toward the petitioner’s safety concerns.
The judges further remarked that if the petitioner were attacked or killed in the future, merely initiating legal proceedings against the accused persons would not restore his life.
In one of the strongest observations made during the hearing, the court underscored the principle that “prevention is better than cure.”
The bench noted that in such cases, the so-called “cure” often amounts only to prosecuting the offender after a tragedy has already occurred.
“Punishing offenders is completely different and, by itself, does not save a human life,” the court remarked. “At best, it works in theory as a deterrent against future crimes, though experience shows that it hardly deters.”
The court also observed that the response submitted by the SSP was “far below the standard” expected from a senior police officer in a matter concerning a citizen’s personal safety.
Consequently, the High Court directed SSP Ankita Sharma to submit a fresh affidavit explaining what concrete security measures she proposes to take to ensure the petitioner’s protection and prevent any unfortunate incident.
The bench pointedly observed that threats to life do not come with a fixed “calendar or schedule,” emphasising the need for proactive policing rather than reactive action after violence occurs.
In its May 4 order, the court further remarked that timely and appropriate steps by the police would spare the judiciary from the unpleasant necessity of issuing direct orders for providing security protection.
The matter has now been listed for further hearing on May 13.
