Full Judgment
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
Petitioner, who says that she, a music teacher, lives with her husband and two minor children, complains of harassment by the second respondent alleging that he, a senior citizen, is in the habit of consuming alcohol and then being in public; with objectionable conduct, using abusive language and otherwise publicly harassing the women folk. Petitioner also says that the second respondent is now living with a woman not connected to him in marriage. We do not take cognizance of that particular allegation.
2. We are astonished to hear the Government version that in terms of Ext.P6,an earlier judgment by this Court, the police took it upon themselves to give continuous police cover to the second respondent by making a constable escort him always that, according to us was wholly unnecessary. Ext.P6 does not contain any such direction.
3. When the High Court issues an order to provide protection for life, that is not a direction to make available a police constable exclusively at the disposal of the person who is to be granted protection, unless so ordered, specifically. In the absence of any such specific direction, it is within the wisdom of the Station House Officer jurisdictional to have appropriate mechanism to have a watch on the person who is granted protection and to extend actual physical cover of protection through a civil police officer or officers when a particular situation warrants such cover. It would be absurd to think otherwise. It is not in national interest to spend money from the public exchequer for policemen to provide police cover, unless, of course, there is specific direction for a complete protective escort and cover, either by the Government, the jurisdictional police officer or the competent court.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, we are clear in our mind that the State Government may find out ways and means of requiring the second respondent to pay up any amount that may be due in terms of Government decisions requiring any payment for having provided the police cover until now.
5. An order for police protection only enables and ensures protection to the life of a human being. That order for such protection, is not to be extended to enable commission of any wrong, even if the wrong does not amount to an offence punishable under law.
6. In the case in hand, the petitioner's complaint coupled with representation by the local people shows that the second respondent's behaviour could be nuisance for the local people. But his learned counsel points out that all these allegations are mechanizations of the children of his client, who are at loggerheads with him on issues relating to property.
7. The jurisdictional police shall take effective steps to ensure that law and order is maintained and any complaint of misbehaviour from any person for that matter; be it the petitioner or the second respondent; is dealt with in accordance with law and that law and order is preserved and ensured. If any situation arises where police protection has to be extended, and if the jurisdictional police officer is satisfied of any imminent danger to life or limb, necessary protection shall be given in accordance with the governing norms, to the one who is in need of that.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly without expressing anything on the rival contentions.