Why Should State Exchequer Bear Z+ Security Expenses: P&H HC Allows Navjot Singh Sidhu To Appear Through Video Conferencing

The facts leading to the matter were that Sidhu, a former Minister of Tourism, Punjab, who is currently confined in jail, was proposed as the complainant's witness in a defamation matter titled Balwinder Singh Sekhon v. Bharat Bhushan Ashu. Accordingly, he was summoned as complainant's witness by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana.

The petitioner, upon receipt of such summons, filed an application praying for his examination through video conferencing on the ground that he was currently under Z+ security cover and was also confined in jail, which application was rejected by the CJM, Ludhiana. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the High Court in the present case requesting to quash the order of the CJM.

The petitioner argued that he is required to appear as a witness only in preliminaries, even before the consideration by the Trial Court as to whether or not to summon the accused in the defamation case and that the petitioner is only required to make a formal statement as to what duties were being discharged by the petitioner during the alleged defamation case.

The single bench of Justice Arun Monga, taking note of the facts and the rules on video conferencing, quashed the order of the CJM, Ludhiana requiring physical presence of Sidhu. The Court stated:

"The petitioner has been provided Z+ security, which is the highest level of protection provided at the expense of the State exchequer. Naturally, the movement of the petitioner from jail to the Court would, therefore, cause a huge loss of the State exchequer and it would also cause inconvenience to the general public in the Court premises, inasmuch, as not only the prior sanitisation of the entire Court premises would be required but in certain areas movement to be cordoned would cause hurdle in the public movement for the duration the petitioner will have to remain in Court campus."

Observing that the order of the Trial Court was misinformed, the Court furthermore stated:

"Concededly the petitioner is under Z+ security cover and the same shall have to be provided to him during his movement from Patiala to Ludhiana where the trial court is situated and return to Patiala. Trial court fell in grave error to observe that "so what, security cover can be provided by the State." However, it remained oblivious as to why should public exchequer be burdened by asking the State to bear the expense of complainant's witness in a totally private dispute qua alleged defamation of the complainant at the hands of another person against whom the private complaint has been filed."

The Court relied on Rules 6, 8.3, 8.4 and 8.15 of the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, noting that the object of the said rules was to facilitate and speed up disposal of matters in the Courts. The Court also relied on the Karnataka High Court decision in T.G. Veeraprasad and Others v. Sri Prakash Gandhi, Writ Petition No. 8283 of 2022 (GM-CPC).

Case Title: Navjot Singh Sidhu v. Balwinder Singh Sekhon and Another

Case No: CRM-M-49763-2022 (O&M)

Coram: Justice Arun Monga

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 281 

Click Here To Read/Download Order