Protecting life should be state’s foremost concern, not just punishing murderers: HC

Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has criticized the police’s approach to citizens’ security, stating that protecting human life should be the state’s foremost concern, not just prosecuting murderers.Hearing a writ petition filed by Badaun resident Nankram, a bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena remarked: “The sensitivity of law-and-order agencies toward protecting human life has always been low and continues to be so.”These strong observations were made by the high court while pulling up Badaun SSP Ankita Sharma over her affidavit filed in response to the writ petition. The court even noted that the understanding of the dispute was likely "entrusted to the wisdom of some 'daroga' to fathom”.The petitioner had earlier approached the SSP seeking protection, as he apprehended a danger to his life from five persons over a land dispute. After he received an 'indifferent' response, he moved the HC seeking protection and registration of an FIR against the private respondents.Hearing his plea on April 6, the high court directed the SSP to file a personal affidavit outlining the steps taken to evaluate thepetitioner's threat perception and his case for the provision of security.However, on May 4, the high court reviewed the affidavit and called it “elusive”, noting that it only outlined the origin of the dispute and the preventive action taken by police against both parties under Sections 170, 126, and 135 of the BNSS.Adding that the response of the SSP was “far below standard than what was expected”, the bench directed her to file another affidavit as to what security measures she has in mind to save the petitioner from some unfortunate happening. The court said that such steps would spare it from the unpleasant task of issuing orders for the provision of security. The court has now listed the matter on May 13 for the next hearing.The affidavit stated that an FIR had been registered against the accused, a chargesheet filed, and beat constables instructed to patrol the village. It concluded that the village was peaceful and that the dispute between the parties stemmed solely from a land partition issue and family enmity.Taking exception to the affidavit treating these points as a sufficient reply to a life threat claim, the bench observed: “The occurrence of an offence and the maintenance of peace are one thing; the petitioner’s alleged threat to his life is another. We find the senior superintendent of police has taken an indifferent stand on the threat perception raised by the petitioner.”The court further remarked that if the petitioner were shot or otherwise assaulted by the fourth and eighth respondents, initiating proceedings under Sections 170, 126, and 135 of the BNSS would not bring him back to life.Stressing that 'prevention is better than cure', the HC said that 'cure' in this case is nothing but a retributive prosecution against the potential murderer or assailants.