SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has directed the Union Territory authorities to assess the threat perception of a former government advocate who had handled sensitive and high-profile cases and to provide him with adequate security cover as warranted by the assessment.
Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani issued the directive while disposing of a writ petition filed by advocate Mohammad Irfan, who had sought the court’s intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution to protect his fundamental right to life and personal liberty.
Irfan, a practicing advocate and former government counsel in the Jammu wing of the High Court, submitted that he had represented the Union Territory in cases involving anti-national elements, overground workers, and suspected militants. According to his plea, his involvement in such matters had exposed him to persistent threats, which had continued even after the conclusion of his official assignment.
The petitioner informed the court that he had formally approached the Additional Director General of Police (Security), Jammu, on November 15 2024, seeking security cover. However, he received no response to the representation. Subsequently, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kishtwar, deployed a constable, Iftakhar Ali, as a personal security officer via order No. 62 of 2024 dated 30 January 2024.
That arrangement was disrupted on 27 December 2024, when the constable was relieved of his duties and transferred to the Government Railway Police through order No. Estt/Relieving/2024/31200-215. Irfan claimed that since then, he has remained exposed and vulnerable, receiving threatening phone calls and messages from unknown numbers.
The petitioner argued that failure of the authorities to assess his situation and provide security violated his constitutional and human rights, particularly those enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty.
In his order, Justice Wani noted that the matter did not require prolonged litigation and could be resolved at the preliminary stage by directing the authorities to fulfil their legal duty. “Right to life includes in it a right not to live a threatful life,” the judge remarked, emphasising that a person who had discharged sensitive responsibilities on behalf of the State deserves consideration and protection.
The Court concluded that the authorities are duty-bound to examine the representation and assess the petitioner’s threat perception in accordance with established rules and procedures. If the threat is found to be genuine, adequate security must be extended to him.
The petition was accordingly disposed of with instructions to the respondents to carry out the assessment and take appropriate action. Copies of the order were also directed to be forwarded to the concerned officials for necessary compliance.
