The division bench of Justice A V Sawant and Justice Ranjana Desai disposed off two petitions filed by gangster Arun Gawli and film producer Rameshkumar Sharma, both of whom had challenged the government's refusal to grant them protection.

The court however noted that the direction of former minister of home for state, Prabhakar More granting protection to Sharma - which was ultimately rejected by the police - was wrong, and held that More had not considered government guidelines in such matters.

Gawli, at present externed to Manchar in Khed, had in 1998 prayed for protection, which was granted to himin an interim relief only when he is brought to the city courts for hearing his cases. Gawli had however asked for a 24 hour police vigil expressing apprehensions to his life from rival gangs. Around 13 cases of murder and extortion are filed against Gawli, though he has not been convicted in any case.

Similarly, Sharma, who was shot at on the sets of Baaghi, had obtained a direction for protection by More. The police rejected this order since the government guidelines of August 9, 1990 amended in 1997, stated that people with criminal background will not be given protection by the state. According to the police, Sharma was one of the financiers of the Chhota Rajan gang. He had around 18 cases against him, though he was not convicted in any of them. Since the police were not following the minister's orders, Sharma had moved court.

Eventually, however, Home Minister Gopinath Munde had cancelled More's order. Today, the bench held that Munde's decision even when the matter was already seized by thecourt should have been communicated to the court as well as Sharma.

Sharma's advocate, Shirish Gupte contended that the government's decision not to give persons with criminal background protection even when threatened by the underworld, while also allowing law abiding citizens protection when similarly threatened, was creating two classes of citizens. This, Gupte claimed, was violative of Article 14 and Article 21.

The bench heard in detail the arguments of senior counsel Ramrao Adik and advocate P M Pradhan for Gawli, Gupte for Sharma and the state advocate general C J Sawant for the state. Sawant argued that the petitioners could claim protection only if it was proved that it was the obligatory for the state to grant it to them.

The bench also held that the classification of citizens by the government was valid, and that law abiding citizens and those with a criminal background could not be put in the same box.