Palampur/Shimla, A day after Himachal Pradesh Police asked a Palampur-based businessman and his family to deposit ₹68.6 lakh in expenses incurred by the state government and police for providing them security since 2023, the businessman on Thursday claimed the protection was provided following a high court order.
According to the notice, Nishant Sharma and his family received security starting November 16, 2023, after he alleged threats to their lives following a property dispute.
During this period, police from various units were deployed on security duty.
“I have received an email from the DGP concerning the withdrawal of police protection provided to me and my family. The notice, however, goes far beyond a mere administrative communication and appears to disregard and undermine the binding directions issued by the court,” Sharma said in a statement.
“The police protection extended to me and my family was not a matter of administrative largesse, personal privilege, or a discretionary facility granted at the pleasure of the state. It was provided on the directions of the constitutional court for the protection of our fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution,” he added.
“On November 16, 2023, the Himachal Pradesh High Court in suo motu proceedings directed that police protection be provided to me and my family, and on April 19, 2024, the Supreme Court enhanced and protected the police security extended to me and my family,” he claimed in the statement.
Sharma said it was “deeply disturbing” that, notwithstanding the judicial directions, he has now been served with a notice seeking not only to withdraw the protection but also requiring him to make payments for the police protection provided by the state.
“Protection ordered by a constitutional court for safeguarding the life and liberty of a citizen cannot, in principle, be converted into a fee-based or commercially chargeable service by the executive.
“The state cannot be permitted to place a price upon the very protection which the constitutional courts have considered necessary for securing a citizen’s fundamental rights,” the statement said.
Sharma said the larger question is whether an executive authority can, by means of an administrative notice, effectively qualify, dilute, or place a financial condition upon protection which has been directed and safeguarded by the constitutional courts.
“Moreover, the necessity for my protection and that of my family was not merely recorded in judicial proceedings. The state government itself conducted joint security review meetings in which the circumstances concerning my security were examined.
“The minutes of those review meetings expressly recorded that my family and I needed to remain under police protection”, Sharma said.
The businessman said he will not succumb to pressure and if the intention behind the notice is to frighten him or deter him from approaching the Supreme Court, “the attempt will have precisely the opposite effect”.
“The notice shall, instead, form part of the material placed before the constitutional courts to demonstrate the circumstances in which the fundamental rights of a citizen can themselves come under pressure from the very state machinery entrusted with the duty of protecting those rights,” he said in the statement.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
