E-Paper
High court orders fresh security audit of 45 Punjab politicians, others
The high court bench of justice Raj Mohan Singh said that in order to ward off the continued apprehension of the protectees as lists were put out in public domain, the competent authority should make fresh assessment in respect of security threats after considering the available inputs from different agencies including state and central agencies.
The Punjab and Haryana high court has ordered fresh security audit of 45 Punjab politicians and others, who had approached Punjab government’s decision of withdrawing or truncating security of protectees.
The high court bench of justice Raj Mohan Singh said that in order to ward off the continued apprehension of the protectees as lists were put out in public domain, the competent authority should make fresh assessment in respect of security threats after considering the available inputs from different agencies including state and central agencies.
The competent authority should also consider the inputs to be provided by the individuals/protectees by giving them adequate notice. “The impression which has been given by bringing the impugned action under public domain can only be cured by undertaking fresh security review,” the bench observed asking the government to pass fresh orders in the cases of 45 petitioners. The court also asked the security personnel ordered by court be continued till fresh order is passed. Those who have not been given security by the court, one security personnel be provided, the bench said asking the government to complete the exercise at the earliest.
The security withdrawal orders had courted controversy in May, after singer, Sidhu Moosewala, was killed by gangsters in Mansa in broad daylight, days after his security cover was partially withdrawn. In the pleas mainly from politicians from SAD and Congress, the government was accused of resorting to “populist measures” and targeting only opposition leaders and withdrawing security in a “pick and choose manner”.
The court noted that the state security review was held by the Committee in February in respect of 557 protectees, which was not leaked. Another review was carried on March 29, after Aam Aadmi Party government took over reins, which has come under the public domain. In this, 283 protectees were considered and status quo was maintained in respect of 104 protectees and security covers of 174 protectee were withdrawn completely.
The court further added that the court cannot lose sight of the fact that in a given case, decategorization of security may sometime prompt the inimical anti-social elements to take drastic step to overcome the decategorized security in order to attack the protectee. “All these events are subjective in nature and no general opinion can be formed at this stage as the same is the state subject for which the competent authority is to form an opinion on the basis of different inputs. This exercise has to be left to the competent authority for making lawful assessment of threat on the basis of inputs to be provided by the State/Central agencies,” it said adding that security issue is not a static phenomenon, rather it is a dynamic process.
Personal security cover cannot be claimed as a matter of right: HC
The court also observed that personal security cover cannot be claimed as a matter of right and in perpetuity. “The demand of security cannot be on the basis of displaying an authority of symbol or to flaunt the status as a very important person. No privileged class can be created on the State’s expense by using money of taxpayers. Personal security cover cannot be claimed as a matter of right and in perpetuity. The security threat has to be assessed on the basis of intelligence inputs from different agencies and if the protectee has a real threat, his threat perception in the form of inputs can also be considered by the competent authority in order to rule out any such real threat if at all exists as per perception of the protectee,” the high court said adding that, the court cannot substitute itself in place of the competent authority and cannot substitute its decision for that of competent authority in respect of threat perception.
It further said that “provision for granting security covers of police officers to individuals for their protection at the cost of taxpayers has to be viewed as an exception and not as a rule,” the bench added.
