Claim of Permanent Government Security Based on Past Protocol Is Baseless: MNA Adil Bazai’s Petition Dismissed
Quetta (Daily Qudrat Quetta), 5 October: A two-member bench of the Balochistan High Court, comprising Chief Justice Balochistan High Court Justice Muhammad Kamran Khan Mallakhail and Justice Muhammad Najamuddin Mengal, while hearing a constitutional petition filed by petitioner and sitting MNA Adil Khan Bazai against the withdrawal of government police security, has held that merely on the basis that the petitioner was provided security in the past, no vested right is created in his favor for the permanent continuation of security.
The court held that in the instant case, apart from general allegations that the petitioner faces threats and a reference to the registration of FIR No. 64/2026, no material was placed before the court to show that the competent authorities acted with malice, ignored any mandatory legal requirement, or issued any order without judicial sanction. The petitioner also failed to place on record any material to establish that the respondents were legally bound to continue the deployment of seven police personnel irrespective of the current security assessment. The court held that the mere fact that security was provided earlier does not create any vested right in favor of the petitioner for its permanent continuation.
The court held that the assessment of threat perception is a dynamic process, dependent on classified intelligence information and security considerations, and is best evaluated by the administrative authorities. In the absence of concrete evidence showing that the decision was discriminatory or mala fide, the court, while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, will refrain from interfering in such administrative matters, which fall within the exclusive domain of the competent security agencies, unless the action is shown to be without lawful authority or patently arbitrary.
The court further held that if the petitioner genuinely apprehends any threat to his life or safety, he is at liberty to approach the competent security authorities afresh for a review of the threat perception, along with all relevant material. In such a case, the competent authorities shall objectively examine the matter in accordance with the law, applicable policy, and the prevailing security situation, without being influenced by the court’s observations.
The court also noted that the matter of the provision and deployment of private security personnel had previously been examined in Constitutional Petition No. 1352 of 2019, which was decided on 29 November 2021. In that matter, the orders issued on behalf of the Inspector General of Police, Director General of Police, Chief Secretary Balochistan, and Chief Secretary of the Home and Tribal Affairs Department, Government of Balochistan, regarding the cancellation of the services of private security guards for parliamentarians and private individuals, were examined.
In the said matter, the court had further directed that dignitaries and politicians facing genuine security threats could approach the Deputy Commissioners and Divisional Commissioners to place their cases before the District Intelligence Coordination Committee and the Divisional Threat Assessment Committee for recommendations, after which the cases were to be forwarded to the Home and Tribal Affairs Department for approval and permission to hire the services of registered private security firms at their own expense.
In compliance with the court’s decision, the Home Department of the Government of Balochistan subsequently, on 22 December 2023, in compliance with the Balochistan Private Security Companies Ordinance, 2001, formulated and issued Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) relating to Constitutional Petition No. 1352/2019. Under the said SOPs, a procedure was laid down specifically for politicians and prominent persons facing genuine security threats, under which they may approach the Deputy Commissioner or Divisional Commissioner to place their case before the District Intelligence Coordination Committee or the Divisional Threat Assessment Committee for consideration and recommendation. Thereafter, the department may make a recommendation regarding registered private security companies.
The court held that the petitioner is thus not deprived of the available procedure for redressal of his complaint regarding his security needs, and he may avail the procedure laid down under the said SOPs by approaching the competent authority with the relevant material and providing information regarding the alleged threat, whereupon his case may be considered and decided by the competent forums through the prescribed procedure.
The court held that the existence of such a procedure further reinforces that the matter of the nature and extent of security required by the petitioner should, in the first instance, be examined by the relevant authorities in accordance with the applicable legal and administrative framework, rather than the court directly determining it while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction.
For the above reasons, the court, finding the constitutional petition devoid of merit, dismissed it without any order as to costs.
