Bombay HC dismisses Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Rajan Vichare’s plea seeking restoration of security

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed the petition filed by Member of Parliament Rajan Vichare, who belongs to the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) faction, seeking restoration of his security, which was reduced by the government.

A bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Abhay Waghase rejected the petition, saying that there was no merit in the plea.

Rajan Vichare was provided with 2+2 security, i.e., two police personnel during the day and two police personnel during the night. The security was later reduced to 1+1, i.e., one police personnel during the day and another during the night, by the state government. He then filed a petition before the high court through advocate Nitin Satpute, alleging that it was a politically motivated move.

The MP had alleged that the government was providing double police security to private personal assistants, party workers, and some people who are not even holding any position but are close to Shinde at the cost of the state exchequer, but the security of those aligning with UBT Shiv Sena has been reduced.

Government opposed the plea

However, the government opposed the plea, contending that a person is neither entitled to police protection as a matter of right nor can it be granted as a matter of course. In its affidavit, it stated the decision to reduce the security was taken after consideration with various authorities, such as the Senior Police Inspector, Asst. Commissioner of Police, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Addl. Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police (SB), Joint Commissioner of Police, and Commissioner of Police, Thane.

The government had further contended that the police protection, which had been granted to Vichare since February 2002, has not been continuous, as the same was discontinued in between.

“Whenever there is any threat perception, after considering the overall view only thereafter police protection is given to the said person either on-payment or non-payment,” the affidavit added.