Specific Police Protection Is Unwarranted Where an FIR Is Registered and Investigation Is Pending.

Petitioner No. 1 was the principal and Petitioner No. 2 the chairman of One Omkar Global Academy.

They alleged that private respondents, parents of students with outstanding school fees, threatened to enter the school armed and cause a disturbance.

The petitioners further alleged that on 14 September 2026 the private respondents and others entered the school, abused staff in the presence of students, and that Petitioner No. 2 later received a threatening call.

The petitioners sought police protection and directions to prevent further unlawful entry or disruption.

The State informed the Court that an FIR had been registered against the private respondents and the threatening call had been referred to the Cyber Cell.

1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to a direction for specific police protection in view of the alleged threats and the steps already taken by the police.

2. Whether further directions were required concerning the investigation and any future threat to the petitioners or school staff.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution, through which the petitioners sought public-law directions for protection of life and personal liberty and police action.

The judgment also records that an FIR had been registered under Section 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in relation to the alleged threatening call.

The Court did not cite or apply any specific precedent or articulate a broader test for granting police protection; it directed that the pending investigation be conducted fairly, independently, and in accordance with law, and that the competent police authority take appropriate action if an imminent threat or cognizable offence arose.

The Court noted that the allegations had already been brought to the police’s attention, an FIR had been registered against the private respondents, and the alleged threatening call had been referred to the Cyber Cell.

In light of those steps and the pending investigation, it found that a separate direction for specific police protection was not warranted at that stage.

It nevertheless preserved the petitioners’ ability to seek police assistance if an imminent threat or cognizable offence occurred, while requiring the authorities to act in accordance with law.

The writ petition and any pending applications were disposed of.