Punjab police spending Rs 9.28 crore annually to protect 25 people outside state | chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Jan 18, 2017-Wednesday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Punjab police spending Rs 9.28 crore annually to protect 25 people outside state

chandigarh Updated: Aug 30, 2013 19:07 IST
Sanjeev Verma
Sanjeev Verma
Hindustan Times
Highlight Story

Finally, the Punjab police have revealed that as many as 207 cops of state police and three sections of central reserve police force (CRPF) have been providing security cover to 25 protectees living outside the state resulting in burdening the state exchequer with Rs 9.28 crore annually.


The information has been provided by assistant inspector general police (security), Paramdip Singh, in compliance of the directions of the Punjab and Haryana high court issued on July 16.

Apart from three union ministers and 16 members of parliament those who have been enjoying Punjab police security also include Rajya Sabha MP from Uttar Pradesh Avtar Singh Karimpuri (Bahujan Samaj Party), IAS officer with the union government, Dinesh Saini; chief justice of Jammu and Kashmir high court MM Kumar; former Punjab governor BKN Chhibber; former Punjab DGP KPS Gill and president of all anti India terrorist front, Maninderjeet Singh Bitta.

Other protectees include union minister of state for external affairs, Preneet Kaur; minister of state for health and family welfare, Santosh Choudhary and minister of state for information and broadcasting, Manish Tewari.

Among the members of Parliament being protected by Punjab police include Harsimrat Kaur Badal, Ravneet Singh Bittu, Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa, Balwinder Singh Bhunder, Navjot Singh Sidhu, Rattan Singh Ajnala, Sher Singh Ghubaya, Paramjit Kaur Gulshan, Ashwani Kumar, Partap Singh Bajwa (president of Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee), Ambika Soni, Vijay Inder Singla, Mohinder Singh KP, Avinash Rai Khanna, Manohar Singh Gill and Naresh Kumar Gujral.

However, the officer has not revealed anything in his reply about withdrawal of any security from the protectees living outside the state. This is despite the clear directions from the high court on July 16, “It is neither the responsibility nor it is desirable that the state provides security to the persons who are residing in other states as there has to be centralized command and where such security is required the central government will ask the state to provide the requisite security. The exception is only if some body is transiting for upto three days.”

The case would now come up for hearing before the high court on August 31.

<