The Allahabad High Court (HC) has expressed immense dismay and launched a sharp critique over the functioning of Uttar Pradesh Police, stating that safeguarding human life must take precedence over merely prosecuting offenders after a crime has taken place.

A division bench comprising Justice JJ Munir and Justice Tarun Saxena, while hearing a writ petition filed by a resident of Badaun, observed that the sensitivity of the law enforcement agencies towards shielding lives has ‘always been low and continues to be so.’ 

Badaun man files petition over threat to life following land dispute

The petitioner, named Nankaram from Badaun, had approached the cops earlier, claiming a serious threat to his life from five persons amid a family land dispute. He, however, alleged an ‘indifferent’ response from the authorities, and later moved the HC seeking protection, as well as pleading that an FIR be registered. 

Earlier, on April 6, the HC had directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Ankita Sharma to file a personal affidavit, which must detail the steps taken to assess the threat and ensure Nankaram’s safety.

Court terms affidavit ‘Elusive’ and inadequate

When the bench reviewed the affidavit on May 4, it found it ‘elusive’ and lacking in substance. The document largely mentioned the background of the dispute, as well as preventive measures initiated under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Thereafter, the court remarked that comprehending the situation appeared to have been left to lower-ranking police officers, without any serious evaluation of the threat perception. Although, it was outlined in the affidavit that an FIR had been registered, the chargesheet had been filed, and that the cops had conducted routine patrolling, it concluded that the village remained peaceful and the dispute was a familial one. 

“Prevention better than cure,” says bench

The bench took strong exception to this reasoning, emphasising that addressing a threat to life requires proactive protection, not reactive measures. It remarked, “The happening of an offence is one thing, the maintenance of peace another. But the threat perception alleged by the petitioner to his life is quite different,” calling the response by the police ‘far below standard.’ 

The Justices maintained that setting legal proceedings in motion after a potential attack would prove futile if the individual’s life is not safeguarded in advance. They reiterated that punishing offenders does little to save lives in real time, serving only as a theoretical deterrent. 

Fresh directives issued to SSP

The court has now directed the SSP to file a fresh affidavit outlining concrete security measures taken to prevent any untoward incident. The matter will next be heard on May 13, with the bench expecting a more comprehensive and responsible response from the authorities.