$~87 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2057/2026 GAURAV GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr Raghav Mehdiratta, Advocate. versus GOVT OF NCT DELHI (THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, ASC (CRL) with Mr Sangeet Sibou, Mr Aniket Kumar Singh and Mr Priyansh Raj Singh Senger, Advocates. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 17.07.2026 CRL.M.A. 20629/2026 (EXEMPTION) 1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(CRL) 2057/2026 and CRL.M.A. 20628/2026 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 03.07.2026 passed by Respondent no.2, the Witness Protection Committee withdrawing the Petitioner's round-the-clock police protection through Personal Security Officer [“PSO”]. The minutes of the Witness This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2026 at 12:56:38 Protection Committee, Central District, dated 04.06.2026 are also under challenge. 4. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner, Gaurav Gupta, is an animal rights activist associated with People for Animals since 2005 and has been actively involved in the detection of organised wildlife crime. It is his case thatowing to his role as a complainant and material witness in several criminal prosecutions, he has been subjected to persistent threats, intimidation and physical assaults, including an incident inside the Court premises on 28.02.2014, pursuant to which police protection was granted. 5. Based on successive threat assessment reports, the Delhi State Legal Services Authority classified him as a Category 'A' witness under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 and directed round-the-clock security through PSOs, which was subsequently enhanced. However, in 2022, his security cover was withdrawn, leading to multiple representations, review proceedings and writ petitions before this Court. 6. This Court repeatedly directed fresh threat assessments and continuation of interim protection, however, the Witness Protection Committee, videimpugned order dated 03.07.2026, again withdrew the petitioner's round-the-clock police protection. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the impugned order and restoration of protection under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and have perused the record. 8. No doubt, the petitioner was earlier granted the protection by deploying PSO with him. The impugned decision, however, notes that the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2026 at 12:56:38 threat assessment report was called for, and the report did not find any reason to infer that there is any threat subsisting against the petitioner. The relevant observations are extracted as under: “The security has already been provided to the applicant/witness by Uttar Pradesh Police. Also, security of one PSO has been provided to him by Delhi Police, which needs to be withdrawn in view of recent threat assessment report dt.25.03.2026 of DCP (Spl. Cell) HQ. In view of above, no direction regarding providing of security is required to be passed at this committee.” 9. A bare perusal of the aforesaid would indicate that the petitioner is the permanent resident of District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and security has already been provided to the petitioner by Uttar Pradesh Police. The PSO which was provided by the Delhi Police, therefore, has been withdrawn. 10. The scope of judicial review against a decision of the Witness Protection Committee is necessarily limited. Once the Competent Authority has considered the Threat Analysis Report and recorded reasons, this Court would not substitute its own assessment of the threat perception unless the decision suffers from arbitrariness, mala fides or patent perversity. 11. The Supreme Court in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India,1 while giving imprimatur to the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, recognised that the grant, continuation and review of protection measures must be founded upon the Threat Analysis Report and remain subject to periodic review depending upon the prevailing threat perception. 12. Likewise, in Tata Cellular v. Union of India2 and Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran3, it has been consistently held that judicial review is concerned with the legality of the decision-making process and not with 1(2019) 14 SCC 615 2(1994) 6 SCC 651 33(2015) 2 SCC 610 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2026 at 12:56:38 substituting the Court's own opinion for that of the competent authority. The Supreme Court inTata Cellular (supra)has observed as under : “74. Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in support of which the application for judicial review is made, but the decision-making process itself. 75. In Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141, 154] Lord Brightman said: “Judicial review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made. *** Judicial review is concerned, not with the decision, but with the decision- making process. Unless that restriction on the power of the court is observed, the court will in my view, under the guise of preventing the abuse of power, be itself guilty of usurping power.” 13. In light of the settled position of law on judicial intervention in such cases, the totality of the circumstances of this case, and the observations rendered in the impugned order, the Court finds that there is no reason to substitute the view taken by the Witness Protection Committee. 14. The petitioner, however, shall always be at liberty to approach the concerned Police Station, in case he perceives any threat. The concerned Police Station is duty bound to look into the petitioner’s grievance. 15. Even otherwise, if the petitioner feels that on account of any subsequent development, he is entitled for any security, he shall be at liberty to re-approach the concerned Committee for appropriate consideration 16. The petitioner shall also be at liberty to file review of the impugned decision in accordance with the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. Let the same be dealt with due expedition. 17. As of now, there is no reason to allow the prayer made by the petitioner, accordingly, the petition, along with pending application, at this This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2026 at 12:56:38 stage, stands dismissed. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 17, 2026 aks/ss This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2026 at 12:56:38