Supreme Court refused to hear a plea seeking security from Lawrence Bishnoi gang, stating such requests are not suitable for writ petitions.
The petitioner had claimed credible threats and asked for police protection, but the court said security decisions are a matter for state or police authorities.
The decision raises concerns about protection mechanisms available to individuals threatened by organised-crime groups when state response is perceived as inadequate.
The Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition filed by a resident of Uttar Pradesh who had sought round-the-clock police protection, claiming threats from the Lawrence Bishnoi gang.
The petitioner had approached the apex court directly, seeking directions for security measures. The court, however, refused to entertain the plea.
The petitioner contended that he faced credible threats from members of the gang and requested personal protection, citing inadequate response from the state authorities. The plea argued that the police had failed to provide sufficient security, prompting the urgent petition before the Supreme Court.
A bench of the Supreme Court said that it would not entertain such a plea under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The court indicated that matters involving police protection and security are better handled by the appropriate state or police authorities rather than through direct petition under constitutional writs.
The decision comes amid repeated warnings and threats by the gang — known for violent crime and alleged involvement in several high-profile cases. Previous courts, including the Allahabad High Court, have directed state authorities to decide on security requests in similar cases, underlining that threat perception and protective measures require state-level assessment.
With this verdict, individuals claiming threats from gangs like Lawrence Bishnoi’s may need to rely on local police or state directives rather than seek direct court-ordered security.
