Courts Cannot Review Threat Perception Assessments, Such Evaluation Falls Under Security Agencies’ Domain: J&K High Court

 

 

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that it has no mechanism to determine whether the threat perception of individuals or political figures has been properly assessed, emphasizing that such evaluations are strictly within the jurisdiction of security agencies. This ruling came in response to a writ petition filed by a political activist seeking security protection due to his role as the Chief Organizer of the Sewa Dal, All India Congress Committee, Jammu.

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, who presided over the case, made it clear that courts are not equipped to evaluate or question the findings of security agencies. He stated, “This Court has no mechanism to go into the question whether the threat perception has been rightly assessed or not. It is the domain of the security agencies to assess the threat perception of each individual or political leader.”

 

The matter arose when the petitioner, a political activist and Chief Organizer of the Sewa Dal All India Congress Committee (Jammu), sought judicial intervention to challenge the denial of personal security protection by the authorities. He requested the court to quash the orders issued by the Inspector General of Police, Security J&K, and the Additional Director General of Police, Jammu Zone, which had rejected his plea for security based on an assessed lack of specific threat.

In an earlier petition, the Court had directed the security agencies to assess the petitioner’s threat perception and consider his request for personal security. Following this, the Security Review Coordination Committee conducted an evaluation, concluding that no specific threat existed in District Jammu. Dissatisfied with this limited assessment, the petitioner contended that his political activities extended beyond the district, especially during election periods, and sought a reassessment covering the entire Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

 

Additionally, the petitioner sought a direction from the court mandating the provision of a Personal Security Officer (PSO), citing his political role and the potential risks associated with his activities, particularly during the ongoing election period. In line with matters previously decided by the J&K High Court, such as Noor Ahmad Shah vs. State of J&K and others and Dr. Kamal Saini vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, the Court reiterated that it cannot override the assessments of security agencies, which are based on detailed reports from field officers and intelligence sources.

 

While acknowledging that the petitioner’s threat assessment was conducted only in District Jammu, the Court directed that the Security Review Coordination Committee reassess the petitioner’s situation in the context of the entire Union Territory, especially given the ongoing elections. However, the Court was careful to limit this directive to the specific facts of the case, emphasizing that it was not establishing a broader precedent.

 

In its final remarks, the Court underscored that its role does not extend to questioning security assessments: “This Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal over the recommendations of the Security Review Coordination Committee and it cannot substitute its own opinion in place of the recommendations of the aforesaid Committee.”

 

The petition was ultimately disposed of with instructions for the security agencies to revisit the petitioner’s threat perception based on the election context, but without setting a general rule applicable to other cases.

Case Title: Sh. Vijay Sharma Vs U.T of Jammu and Kashmir

Citation: 2024 Live Law (JKL) 264