Supreme Court Stays HC Direction To Punjab & Haryana On VVIP/VIP Security Cover

The Supreme Court recently stayed the direction issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court to revoke the security cover given to IAS officers in Haryana  dealing with civil administration responsibilities or quasi-judicial work.

The Court also stayed the High Court's direction which sought details of the Police security provided to VIPs and VVIPs in Punjab and Haryana.

The bench of Justices AS Oka and AG Masih was hearing a challenge to the order of the Punjab and Haryana High which observed that involving the police personnel in providing security cover to VIPs and IAS officers has a reverse impact on the condition of law and security in general.

The orders have been challenged by the State of Haryana represented by Additional Advocate General Lokesh Sinhal. 

In the order dated April 23, the High Court sought details from the Punjab DGP on security cover provided to VIPs and individual persons under State Security Policy.

Subsequently, in another order of October 4, the High Court directed the Haryana DGP to file his personal affidavit and ensure that in case any IAS Officer in the State of Haryana while dealing with civil administration responsibilities or quasi-judicial work is provided with any security, the same shall be recalled with immediate effect.

The said orders have been passed by the High Court while hearing anticipatory bail petitions of three accused persons booked in 2019 in a case pertaining to Sections 377, 388, 389, 109, 115, 116 and 120-B of IPC. 

The Top Court however held that such directions were duly unwarranted as the above issue was completely unrelated to the anticipatory bail application that the High Court was tasked to consider. 

While staying the said observation of the High Court, the bench cautioned against indulging in issues which were outside the purview of the bail matter.

"The High Court while dealing with the petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, had no reason to go into the aspects of making provision for security to VIPs, VVIPs and other citizens."

"In our view, the High Court cannot go into all these questions while deciding the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is obvious that the High Court will refrain itself from dealing with the issues which are raised in orders dated 23rd April, 2024 and 4th October, 2024. The High Court will remain confined to the issue regarding the grant of anticipatory bail. The orders passed by the High Court on the aspects of the security need not be acted upon." 

Before The High Court 

Justice Harkesh Manuja said, "The shortage of police personnel in the field is a significant factor, compounded by delayed investigations and prolonged trials, all cumulatively contribute towards the law and order situation. Moreover, beyond their immediate impact, these circumstances erode the trust of ordinary citizens in the system."

Over time, this loss of faith poses a serious and substantial threat to the citizens, including witnesses, compelling the state to provide them with security measures, the Court said.

The Court noted that,"FIR was filed almost 6 years ago and till date only one witness has been examined. While the witness in this case expressed threat to his life and he was also provided a police personal for ensuring his safety."

It said that deploying police personal for security purpose also has a reverse impact on the condition of law and security in general.

The judge referred to Om Prakash Soni vs State of Punjab and others" [CWP Nos.11872 of 2022 (& other connected cases)], stating that, "a Co-ordinate bench of this Court observed that 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 and no privileged class can be created on the State's expense by using money of taxpayers."

In these circumstances, it becomes imperative for this Court to examine the basis on which security has been provided to the individuals, the Court opined.

The High Court noted the norms and guidelines for granting security cover to individuals have been laid down in State Security Policy, 2013 which has been notified by the State of Punjab in September 2013 in view of directions issued by the Apex Court in 'Abhay Singh vs. State of U.P. and others'[SLP No.25237 of 2013].

Consequently, the Court directed the DGP Punjab to file an affidavit providing following information with respect to the State Security Policy, 2013 apart from placing on record a copy of the policy, before the next date of hearing:-

(i) What is the frequency of periodical assessment of threat perceptions to the individuals provided with the security?

(ii) Excluding ex-officio persons, how many individuals in cluding VIPs, VVIPs, Citizens are assigned Security Personal(s) as on date under different categories?

(iii) How many individuals are provided with security against payment and at what percentage? What is the total expenditure incurred by the state on providing security and how much is it able to recover from the payments made by the protectee?

Case Details : STATE OF HARYANA APPELLANT(S) v.  RAJAN KAPUR & ANR.ETC. | SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS.14734-14736 OF 2024