Allahabad High Court rejected Srikant Tyagi’s Petition probing the security in view of threat
to life. The Allahabad High Court while dissolving the Srikant Tyagi’s petition stated that an
individual who has prioritize the violence and doesn’t care the value of a human life, has no
right to plead that the State machineries should take preventive measures in order to safeguard
his life from his enemies.
The Division Bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar passed
the above-stated order while reviewing a petition filed by Srikant Tyagi and others.
Petitioners sought to seek the following reliefs by filing the petition against the State: –
(I) To pass a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the State who
is Respondent No. 2 & 3 to abide by the order dated 20.03.2017 and the Order/Letter

dated 10.09.2018 issued by the Central Government (Respondent No. 1) and the
Uttar Pradesh Government (Respondent No. 2);
(II) Both Central Government and State Government should take preventive and special
measures in order to ensure the implementation of the direction to provide safety
measures to Srikant Tyagi (Petitioner No. 1) as ordered or advised through
Government Order/Letter dated 20.11.2018 and order passed by the government on
30.01.2019 as well as direct the authority concerned to continue the security of 4
paid government gunners to the Petitioner No. 1, Srikant Tyagi and 3 paid
government gunners to Petitioner No. 2, Anu Tyagi who is the wife of PN 1 in the
instant matter.
(III) Or; pass any other order, direction, writ which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in circumstances of the case.
(IV) And if it may please, also provide the award, cost of petition in favor of petitioners
in the instant matter filed before this Hon’ble Court.

Facts of the case are stated as follows: –

That Petitioner No. 1, Srikant Tyagi is an active politician who indulges in Social, Political and
Religious programs in different districts of the State of UP as well as country. Petitioner No. 2
in the instant matter is the wife of Srikant Tyagi (PN1). Due to consistent political hustle-tussle,
some person comprising Vinay Tyagi (Ex-Block Pramukh of Samajwadi Party from Purkaji
Block, Muzaffarnagar, UP) has a criminal history of about 46 cases given life threats to PN 1
and his family members. It is alleged that while he was on the way from Ghaziabad to Lucknow
dated 18.10.2012, a mishap took place at Toll Naka, Attariya, Sitapur wherein a high-speed
truck overtook his car with a motive to kill him. As a consequence of the same he also sustained
some grave injuries. The said incident was reported and a FIR was lodged on 02.11.2012 in
this regard and registered a case u/s 307, 325, 323 and 427 of IPC at P.S., Atariya, Sitapur
District and the litigation of the said case is still pending. Again the same person attacked him
on 04.04.2015 while he was on his way from Lucknow to Ghaziabad and thus suffered serious
injuries on his body.
Regarding the said incident, a FIR was lodged on 01.05.2015 and a case was registered u/s 307
& 427 IPC at P.S. Sirsaganj, Firozabad District. Looking into the seriousness of the matter, the
Central Government had issued a letter dated 20.0302017 indicating that Srikant Tyagi, PN1

had serious life threats from history-sheeters Vinay Tyagi & Tinku, Teetu Thakur, Ravindra
alias Babli and Pradeep and they can commit the murder of PN1 and his family- members.
The same was confirmed by the Local Intelligence Units of the State and also sent a report to
the concerned authorities on 06.09.2017.
As a consequence of the same, PN1 was provided 4 gunners security on public expenses dated
20.11.2018 and the PN2 was also provided the security of 3 gunners on public exchequer dated
31.01.2019. Subsequently, the security was withdrawn on 09.08.2022.
Advocate Rakesh Pandey appearing on behalf of the petitioners also submitted the report of
Local Intelligence Units of the State of UP and contended that the Vinay Tyagi and his gang
members continues to give life threats to PN1 for withdrawing the said criminal case against
them. He also submitted that it is the responsibility of the State to secure life of every citizen
and specifically when there is a life threat perception to the Petitioner and his family members.
Thus, taking no action by the Respondents in the instant matter simply depicts the scope of
arbitrariness on their part and is also unreasonable along with the violation of statutory
provisions and Petitioners in the given matter deserves to get the security at the cost of public
respectively.
On the other side, the Counsel for Respondents significantly opposed the said Writ-Petition by
establishing that several criminal cases have been registered against PN1 and thus the filed
petition doesn’t need aby interference and shall be dissolved.
The Court in the given matter observed the following: –
(I) While taking a perusal of the Government Order dated 25.04.2001 into account
which shows that the security is provided as per the recommendation of District
Legal Security Committee for a one -month period which can be extended at a
stretch up to 3 months and further extension could only be given by the State
Government on specific recommendation given by District Legal Security
Committee (DLSC).
(II) The Government-Order provides that a monthly basis review is to be done in order
to determine the consistent need of security in view of life threat perception.
(III) Moreover, the most important question which comes into limelight is whether it is
suitable to provide personal security to an individual who have significant criminal
records. As per our view, providing personal security to such an individual would
strengthen the activity of such person to the detriment of the society at large.

(IV) A person who has preferred violence and doesn’t have any value of human life has
no right to plead that the State shall take preventive measures to protect his life from
his enemies. The Threat perception, in such cases is created by a person on his own
accord and the State in such cases shall not come forward to provide him security.
(V) Therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we aren’t of the view to
interfere in this matter, the Court further stated while dissolving the said petition.