# Vikas Chaudhary & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 149
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-05
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 41622 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava, Sudhanshu Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vikas-chaudhary-anr-v-union-of-india-ors-54166
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

2 All. Vikas Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
149

126. This Court deprecated the participation of husband of Naima Khatoon as Chairperson to Executive
Council. However, after appreciating the concept of bias, this Court was of the view that the selection of
Naima Khatoon should not be disturbed.

127. The facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of Prof. (Dr.) Mujahid Beg (supra)
inasmuch as in the present case, respondent no.6 was an applicant and candidate for consideration for the
benefit under Career Advancement Scheme and she had participated in preparation of list of External Experts
and experts from the list of External Experts forwarded by respondent no.6 were the members of Selection
Committee, who selected the respondent no.6. Therefore, there is every likelihood of bias in participation of
such expert members in the Selection Committee. Therefore, we find that there is an element of bias in the
selection process. Thus, for this reason also, we find that selection of respondent no.6 is vitiated.

128. It has also been brought on record by the learned counsel for the respondent-University that now
the Executive Council has been constituted and selection of respondent no.6 has been approved, copy of
Resolution of Executive Council, ECR dated 09.10.2025 has been brought on record by the respondent no.3
through supplementary counter affidavit.

129. However, we are of the view that approval of appointment of the respondent no.6 by the Executive
Council would not regularize the illegality committed by the respondents in carrying out the selection and
therefore, we set aside the Resolution of Executive Council, ECR dated 09.10.2025.

130. For the reasons detailed above, we hold that constitution of Selection Committee is bad in law, and
therefore, the selection of respondent no.6 is also bad in law. Consequently, we set aside the judgement of
learned Single Judge as well as the selection of respondent no.6 on the post of Professor, Department of
Dance, Faculty of Performing Arts, BHU, Varanasi. We further direct the respondent no.3-Vice Chancellor,
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi to hold fresh selection by constituting a Committee by excluding the
appellant and respondent no.6 from the PPC for preparation of panel of Experts and form a Selection
Committee consisting of Experts from Katthak stream having essential qualifications to become Subject
Expert within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

131. Consequently, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 149
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

Writ C No. 41622 of 2025

Vikas Chaudhary & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for consideration
Whether private individuals should be given security at State cost?

Headnotes
A. Criminal Law - As a matter of principle, private individuals should not be given security at
State cost unless there are compelling transparent reasons, which warrant such protection,
especially if the threat is linked to some public or national service they have rendered and, the
security should be granted to such persons until the threat abates. But, if the threat perception
is not real, it would not be proper for the Government to grant security at the cost of taxpayers
money and to create a privileged class. (Para 9)

B. This Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction u/Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot
substitute its decision to the decision of the competent Authority in respect of threat perception
of the petitioner to his life and property. The threat perception has to be real and the Security
Committee has to assess the threat perception, taking into consideration the reports from Intelligence Unit,
the concerned police station and past record of the applicant. The security should be provided only to those
who face real threat to their life for having done some work in the interest of the society or the nation from
terrorist/naxalite or organized gangs and not otherwise. A personal enmity with other would not come
within the parameters for assessing the threat perception of the applicant for providing him
security. (Para 9)

The gravity of threat has to be real and not just based upon perceptive apprehension. The
satisfaction of the competent authority cannot be ignored in the absence of any trustworthy, credible and
reliable evidence. A Court does not stand as an expert to assess the correctness of the decision of the
competent authority and to evaluate the threat, if any, faced by an individual. The same has to be left to the
competent authority and its assessment and discretion. (Para 10)

The threat perception in the present case has already been assessed by the competent authority and security
has already been provided to the petitioners. Further, the nature and gravity of threat perception essentially is
a question of fact which is best assessed by the authorities constituted under the various government orders
and the assessment of the same does not lie within the domain of this Court while exercising it's powers
u/Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Lastly, the petitioners neither have a statutory right nor a
fundamental right to claim police protection and as such, usually the right to claim police protection cannot be
enforced in exercise of power u/Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Para 11)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Ramveer Upadhyay Vs. R.M. Srivastava and others, 2015 (13) SCC 370 (Para 7)
2. M.A. Khan Chaman Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2004 SCC Online All 373 (Para 8)
3. Abhishek Tiwari, Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. 10867(MB) of 2021, decided on 04.08.2021
(Para 9)
4. Jaskirat Singh Chahal Vs. State of Punjab and others, Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in
LPA No. 2165 of 2017, decided on 28.03.2022 (Para 10)

List of Keywords
Security, protection, privilege, gravity, threat, jurisdiction.

Appearances for Parties:
For Petitioner(s): M Afzal Parvej, Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, Arif Ikbal, Sarphraj
For Respondent(s): A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Vinay Kumar Singh
2 All. Vikas Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
151
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhanshu Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the Staterespondents.

2. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking a direction for the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to immediately provide armed Central Security
Force Protection (CRPF) to the petitioners in the light of the grave and persistent threat to the lives
of the petitioners.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that three FIRs have been lodged by the petitioners, the
first FIR bearing Case Crime No. 185 of 2020 in respect of breaking of boundary wall and labour
quarters in the brick-kiln of the petitioners, the second FIR bearing Case Crime No. 700 of 2020
relating to a false trust/deed (as alleged in the writ petition) and the third FIR bearing Case Crime
No. 173 of 2023 relating to hacking of the mobile phone of the petitioners. Under the
circumstances, it is contended that the petitioners are facing an imminent threat to their lives and as
such they are seeking protection.

4. However, the perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition do not disclose a single specific
instance on the basis of which it can be assumed that the petitioners have any threat to their lives.
Further, other than the persons who have been named in the FIRs lodged at the instance of the
petitioners, not a single person has been named including those named in the FIRs in the writ
petition who has hurled any life threat to the petitioners or their family members. It is also duly
admitted that vide order dated 06.08.2023, the petitioners have been granted police protection by
providing one security guard. Hence, it is evident that the petitioners have already been provided
police protection keeping in view the threat perception as assessed by the competent authority.

5. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the law laid down in this regard, it can
very well be held that the nature of threat perception and the liability to provide security has to be
left to be decided by the authorities concerned, since this is clearly a question of fact to be dealt
with by the authorities entrusted with the duty and not for this Court to determine while exercising
it's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, we find that the provision
for security in the shape of police personnel has become more of a status symbol by means of
which, a privileged class has been created at the expense of the State and the taxpayers? money.

6. In a country governed by the rule of law and democratic polity, a class of privileged persons
should not be created by the State. Our country has got a written Constitution and as per the
preamble, the goal of the Indian Democratic Republic is to secure justice to all citizens, socially,
economically and politically, and equality of status and of opportunity to all. The State cannot be
seen as creating a privileged class in the society as it would amount abdication of the very principle
of justice and equality enshrined in the Constitution. There may be cases where public interest
demand to provide personal security but same should be done in a transparent and fair manner and
the State should be able to justify it's decision if, the same is challenged in the Court of law.
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramveer Upadhyay Vs. R. M.
Srivastava and others, 2015 (13) SCC 370 arising out of a case where Z category security of a
Minister in the State of U.P. had been downgraded after he ceased to be a Minister, the Hon'ble
Court had held as under:

"6. However, in our experience, we have hardly seen any security of "Z" or "Y" category
provided to any ordinary citizen, howsoever grave the threat perception or imminent danger may be
to the person concerned. The petitioner, however, has claimed it obviously as a "privileged class"
by virtue of being an ex-Minister which at times, may be justified even to an ex-Minister or any
other dignitary, considering the nature and function of the duties which he had discharged, which
could facilitate the assessment of his threat perception even after laying down the office. But what
exactly is his threat perception and whether the same is grave in nature, obviously will have to be
left to be decided by the authorities including the authorities of the State or the Centre which
may include even the Intelligence Bureau or any other authority concerned which is entitled to
assess the threat perception of an individual. But insofar as the court of law is concerned, it
would obviously be in a predicament to come to any conclusion as to whether the threat
perception alleged by a person claiming security is grave or otherwise which would hold him
entitled to the security of a greater degree, since this is clearly a question of factual nature to be
dealt with by the authorities entrusted with the duty to provide security after assessing the need
and genuineness of the threat to any individual."

8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M.A. Khan Chaman Vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2004 SCC Online All 373, wherein the petitioner had sought continuous security that too
free of cost, this Court had held as under:

"There is no right of the petitioner to enjoy this privilege ad infinitum. It is regrettable
that on flimsy grounds people exercise undue influence and manage to secure gunners and security
at State expense and at tax payers cost. In fact acquisition of a gunner has begun to be treated as a
status symbol. This practice must be brought to an end. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that
the petitioner is entitled as a matter of right to be provided a security guard at State expense or at
reduced cost."

9. Another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 10867(MB) of 2021 (Abhishek
Tiwari, Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 04.08.2021, wherein the petitioner had been
refused personal security by the competent authority while dismissing the writ petition, this Court
had held as under:

"29. As a matter of principle, private individuals should not be given security at State cost
unless there are compelling transparent reasons, which warrant such protection, especially if the
threat is linked to some public or national service they have rendered and, the security should be
granted to such persons until the threat abates. But, if the threat perception is not real, it would not
be proper for the Government to grant security at the cost of taxpayers money and to create a
privileged class. In a democratic country governed by rule of law and written Constitution
providing security at State expense ought not to become an act of patronage to create a coterie of
?obliged? and ?loyal? persons. The limited public resources must be used carefully for welfare
2 All. Vikas Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
153
schemes and not in creating a privileged class. From a report of Bureau of Police Research and
Development (BPR&D), police think tank of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), more than
20,000 additional policemen than the sanctioned strength were deployed in VIP protection duty in
the year 2019. As per the report, Data on Police Organizations, 2019, as many as 66,043 policemen
were deployed to protect 19,467 Ministers, Members of Parliament, Judges, Bureaucrats and other
personalities and, thus number is growing up in every year.

32. This Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, cannot substitute its decision to the decision of the competent Authority in respect of threat
perception of the petitioner to his life and property. From the facts as emanate from the record, it is
evident that the petitioner does not face any real threat to his life or property. He has been asking
for security as authority of symbol to flaunt his status a VIP. This practice, creating a privileged
class on State expense and taxpayers money, is to be deprecated. It is, therefore, provided that the
threat perception has to be real and the Security Committee has to assess the threat perception,
taking into consideration the reports from Intelligence Unit, the concerned police station and past
record of the applicant. The security should be provided only to those who face real threat to their
life for having done some work in the interest of the society or the nation from terrorist/naxalite or
organized gangs and not otherwise. A personal enmity with other would not come within the
parameters for assessing the threat perception of the applicant for providing him security."

10. Similarly, a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in LPA No. 2165 of 2017
(Jaskirat Singh Chahal Vs. State of Punjab and others) decided on 28.03.2022 while relying
upon the law laid down by this Court in the case of Abhishek Tripathi (supra) has held as under:

"10. The gravity of threat has to be real and not just based upon perceptive apprehension.
In the event the competent authority in the State Govt. is convinced that the threat has abated, there
can be no justification to extend a personal security cover at the State's expense, only as an act of
patronage or as an act aimed to create a coterie of obliged and loyal persons. Limited public
resources cannot be deployed for display of eminence and as an attempt to bolster the ego of the
recipient of such protection. The satisfaction of the competent authority cannot be ignored in the
absence of any trustworthy, credible and reliable evidence. A Court does not stand as an expert to
assess the correctness of the decision of the competent authority and to evaluate the threat, if any,
faced by an individual. The same has to be left to the competent authority and its assessment and
discretion.

11. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, cannot substitute its decision for that of the competent authority pertaining to the threat
apprehension entertained by the appellant. The facts that emanate from the record do not establish
any real threat and it seems that the demand for security is more to display it as an authority of
symbol and to flaunt his status as a VIP. This practice of creating a privileged class on the State's
expense, by using the taxpayers' money has to be deprecated."

11. Hence in the above background, we are of the view that the threat perception in the present
case has already been assessed by the competent authority and security has already been provided
to the petitioners. Further, the nature and gravity of threat perception essentially is a question of
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fact which is best assessed by the authorities constituted under the various government orders and
the assessment of the same does not lie within the domain of this Court while exercising it's powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Lastly, the petitioners neither have a statutory right
nor a fundamental right to claim police protection and as such, usually the right to claim police
protection cannot be enforced in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to issue any direction to the authorities
concerned for the reasons detailed above.

13. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 154
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 368 of 2026

Mayank Tripathi & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the Magistrate can take cognizance and issue summons without affording the accused an
opportunity of hearing under Section 223 BNSS, 2023.
Whether postponement of process and inquiry under Section 225 BNSS, 2023 is mandatory when the accused
resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
Whether failure to comply with Sections 223 and 225 vitiates the summoning order.?

HEADNOTES
Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section - 192, 200, 202, 482, - Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section - 210, 212, 223, 1223(1), 225, 226, 528 - Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) - Section - 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2), - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 -
Section - 3, 4: - Application under Section 528 BNSS - seeking quashing of summoning order as well as
criminal proceedings - complaint case - offences under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(2) BNSS and 3/4 D.P.
Act - statements recorded - summons issued - applicants pleaded violation of Section 223 BNSS (no
opportunity of hearing before cognizance) and Section 225 BNSS (no inquiry despite accused residing outside
jurisdiction) - State opposed but conceded legal position - Court finds that opportunity of hearing is
substantive safeguard - inquiry under Section 225 mandatory, failure to comply vitiates order - held -
Magistrate must examine complainant/witnesses, consider dismissal under Section 226, and only thereafter
issue notice and take cognizance - consequently, impugned order unsustainable - order impugned set aside -
application allowed with directions to Magistrate to proceed afresh in accordance with law. (Para - 16, 17, 18)
Application Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Prateek Agarwal v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 8212