145;No security cover needed for privileged146;

A Division Bench comprising Justices S R Alam and Sudhir Agrawal said: 8220;The state is under a constitutional obligation to provide adequate security to each and every individual, irrespective of his caste, creed, religion, status, position etc. Life of the most ordinary person is equally important as that of a person holding a high position in the state.8221;

Uttar Pradesh has a population of over 20 crore and the police force has less than 2 lakh of personnel. Therefore, for every 1,000 citizens, one officer is available. In such circumstances, if the state withdraws a large number of personnel who provide security cover to the privileged, it will put the common man at risk, the bench said.

8220;This can neither be appreciated nor is consistent with the constitutional scheme, which treats every individual equal as far as the question of his life and liberty is concerned,8221; it added.

Coming down heavily on the trend to provide security to persons indulged in criminal activities, the court maintained that such persons cannot look to the state for separate security cover at the cost of the common man.

Similarly, the mere fact that a person has been elected to hold an office is not sufficient to provide him individual security since he is a representative of the people. 8220;He cannot feel threatened by those very people who have elected him,8221; the Bench said. Moreover, spending huge amounts for individual security of so-called privileged persons is an unnecessary and unwarranted burden on the public exchequer.

The court has directed to send its judgment to the Chief Secretary, Principle Secretary Home and Director General of Police for compliance.