The Delhi government on Wednesday informed the Supreme Court that its non-plan allotted expenditure for VIP security last year was more than Rs.300 crore.
In an affidavit filed before the apex court, additional secretary GP Singh of the state’s home department also gave details of the guidelines formulated under which VIP security was provided to politicians, bureaucrats and judges.
The affidavit was filed in response to January 17, 2013 court order, directing all states to spell out how much each government had spent on VIP security and how many personnel were deployed for it.
According to Delhi’s affidavit, in the year 2012-13 it had allotted Rs.341,24,32,000 on providing security cover.
A bench headed by Justice GS Singhvi would peruse the affidavit on Thursday while hearing a petition filed by UP politico Abhay Singh challenging security cover to his opponent.
“It is further stated that security is provided to dignitaries keeping in view their status and threat perception,” stated the affidavit.
As per the court direction the state did not mention the names of dignitaries under security cover in its affidavit.
It, however, said the list of people with Z+ security would be provided in a sealed cover.
Similarly, a list of 376 people, provided security cover as central protectees and 83 local protectees, would also be submitted in a sealed cover.
The affidavit also gave a break-up of the number of police personnel deployed in various duties.
Over 5,800 personnel were posted in the traffic department, 63,985 in law and order, 3,448 in the crime prevention and investigation wing and 8,049 in the VIP security unit.
The detailed affidavit comes subsequent to the Delhi Police receiving flak from SC on the last date of hearing.
Justifying VVIP security for dignitaries, the Delhi Police had claimed in its affidavit that security was provided not on account of specific threats but to facilitate bold and impartial decision making.
Taking strong exception to the affidavit, a bench headed by Justice GS Singhvi had said to “contemptuously ignore” it.
“He must be an IPS officer and must have read IPC and CrPC. We don’t expect this sort of response. The DCP has to be on the streets,” the SC had said.