PM Security Lapse: Plea In Delhi High Court To Bring Civil & Military Authorities Under Superintendence Of SPG

The Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh has adjourned the matter to April 30, upon noting that the petition may involve some issues overlapping with case already pending before the Supreme Court with respect to the breach of security of Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his visit to Punjab on January 5.

Advocate V. Govinda Ramanan, appearing for the Petitioner, argued before the Bench that the PIL is limited to seeking Prime Minister's safety under Section 14 of the Special Protection Group Act, 1988.

This would allow local, state or central levels to coordinate under the superintendence of the SPG to ensure the safety and security of the PM, whenever the need arises, he submitted.

Senior Advocate Amit Mahajan, Standing Counsel for the Union of India however submitted that the Supreme Court is currently adjudicating on similar matters, with over-lapping issues.

The petition has been filed by one Ashish Kumar in the wake of January 5 incident. The plea states,

"during the last few decades, terrorism has been steadily assuming menacing proportions in various parts of the country and abroad... terrorists aim to destabilize the democratically elected Government by resorting to selective killing of prominent members of the public including those who are in the Government and as such the Hon'ble Prime Ministers have been under several threats to their life."

Therefore, it has been prayed to provide proximate security to the Prime Minister by declaring that in terms of Section 14 of the SPG Act, 1988 all the Authorities be it civil or military, state, central or local shall act under superintendence of the Director or any member of the SPG, whenever directed.

Reliance has been placed on Commissioner of Police Delhi & Ors. v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, New Delhi (1996) 6 SCC 232, where the Apex court stated that,

"The expression "proximate security" has to be given a purposive meaning, for, it could never have been intended by the Parliament ·that security would be restricted to places of functions, engagements, residence or halt on resorting to a literal meaning. The purposive approach would warrant these places to be wide enough to include visits of a protected..."

Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs and SPG through its Director are respondents in the matter.

Case Title: Ashish Kumar v Union of India & Anr., WP (C ) 768/2022