The Andhra Pradesh High Court has affirmed that the state’s police have a constitutional duty to protect lawful economic activities conducted under statutory license, even in the face of local obstruction. This ruling reinforces the fundamental right to carry on any trade or business under Article 19(1)(g) and clarifies that police inaction in such cases constitutes a violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Koganti Anjaneyulu and Yalavarti Siva Kesava Krishna Rao, are landowners in Pedalingala Village, Nandivada Mandal, Krishna District, who obtained a valid license dated 30.03.2026 from the Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority (APSADA) to convert their agricultural land into aquaculture ponds. The land in question, comprising 26.84 acres and 26.13 acres across 42 survey numbers, lies within a designated aqua zone under the Andhra Pradesh State Aquaculture Development Authority Rules, 2020. The Gram Panchayat also passed a resolution permitting the petitioners to proceed with the activity in compliance with applicable rules.
Key Facts
- The petitioners hold a valid license (Ex.P1) issued on 30.03.2026 for aquaculture operations.
- The activity is legally permitted under state aquaculture rules and falls within a notified aqua zone.
- Local villagers began obstructing the petitioners’ lawful operations without legal authority.
- The Gram Panchayat, after due consideration, resolved on 10.04.2026 to support the petitioners’ lawful activity.
- On 13.05.2026, the petitioners filed a formal complaint with the Nandivada Police Station seeking protection.
- The police registered Crime No. 94 of 2026 under Sections 126(2), 351(2), 329 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) on the same day.
- Despite registration of the crime, no police protection or bandobast was provided to the petitioners.
- The petitioners’ repeated requests for protection remained unaddressed.
Procedural History
- 30.03.2026: APSADA issues aquaculture license to petitioners.
- 10.04.2026: Gram Panchayat passes resolution permitting aquaculture activity.
- 13.05.2026: Petitioners file complaint with Nandivada Police Station.
- 13.05.2026: Crime No. 94 of 2026 registered under BNS provisions.
- 14.05.2026: Petitioners file Writ Petition No. 14670/2026 before the High Court.
- 21.05.2026: Hearing before Justice Balaji Medamalli; petition disposed of.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Argued that their activity is lawful, licensed, and constitutionally protected. They contended that police inaction despite registration of a crime amounts to abdication of duty under Article 21 and violates their right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g). They sought a writ of mandamus directing police protection.
Respondents (State & Police): Submitted that police cannot provide mechanical or continuous protection in civil or property disputes absent a court order or imminent threat. They claimed that investigation into Crime No. 94 of 2026 was underway and that police must remain impartial.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing Respondents 1 to 5 to provide immediate and ongoing police protection for their lawful aquaculture operations on the specified survey numbers, and to declare their inaction as illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21.
The Legal Issue
Does the police have a constitutional obligation to provide protection to individuals carrying out lawful economic activities under statutory license when faced with unlawful obstruction, even in the absence of a specific court order?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel relied on State of U.P. v. Raj Narain and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to argue that the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) includes protection from unlawful interference. They emphasized that registration of a crime under BNS does not absolve the police of their duty to prevent further obstruction. The petitioners’ activity was not a private dispute but a state-authorized economic activity, making police protection a matter of public interest and constitutional obligation.
For the Respondent
The Assistant Government Pleader contended that police cannot act as private security for civil disputes and must remain neutral. They cited State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah to argue that continuous police protection requires either a court directive or demonstrable threat perception. They maintained that registration of Crime No. 94 of 2026 was sufficient compliance and that further protection would set a precedent for misuse.
The Court's Analysis
The Court rejected the State’s argument that police protection is contingent upon a prior court order. It held that the petitioners’ aquaculture activity was not a private civil dispute but a lawful, licensed economic enterprise protected under Article 19(1)(g). The Court observed that the Gram Panchayat’s resolution and the statutory license rendered the activity legitimate and beyond mere private contention.
"Every citizen has a right to carry on business, which is a fundamental right. If any obstruction is caused to such lawful activity, the authorities are required to extend necessary protection, subject to law, to ensure that such lawful activity is not hindered by unlawful interference."
The Court distinguished between providing continuous security and responding to specific threats. It clarified that while police need not station personnel permanently, they are duty-bound to provide bandobast whenever obstruction occurs. The mere registration of a crime does not discharge the state’s obligation to prevent recurrence of unlawful acts. The Court emphasized that Article 21’s guarantee of life and personal liberty includes the right to livelihood and economic security.
The Court further noted that the police’s role is not merely reactive but preventive in nature when constitutional rights are at stake. The State’s duty to maintain public order under Article 21 extends to safeguarding lawful economic activity from mob intimidation or unauthorized interference.
The Verdict
The writ petition was disposed of with the direction that the police shall provide necessary bandobast as and when required to protect the petitioners’ lawful aquaculture operations on the specified survey numbers. The police must respond promptly to any obstruction, ensuring the petitioners can carry out their licensed activities without unlawful hindrance. No order as to costs. All pending applications are closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Police Protection Is Not Discretionary for Lawful Economic Activities
- Practitioners can now invoke Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 to demand police intervention when licensed businesses face obstruction.
- Registration of a crime under BNS or IPC is insufficient; police must act preventively when lawful activity is threatened.
- Local bodies’ resolutions supporting lawful activity strengthen the petitioner’s claim for state protection.
Licensing Creates a Public Interest Dimension
- Activities conducted under statutory license (e.g., aquaculture, mining, renewable energy) are no longer private disputes but matters of public economic interest.
- Courts will treat obstruction of licensed activities as potential violations of constitutional rights, not mere civil wrongs.
- Police cannot invoke neutrality to avoid duty when the state itself has authorized the activity.
Proactive Bandobast Required, Not Reactive Investigation
- Police must deploy bandobast upon credible threat or actual obstruction, not wait for escalation.
- The burden shifts to the State to prove why protection is not feasible, not on the citizen to prove imminent danger.
- This precedent applies equally to farmers, fisherfolk, and entrepreneurs operating under state-issued permits in rural and coastal areas.
