State Security Can't Be Demanded To Display Authority/ Flaunt Status: P&H High Court On Plea By Ex-Ministers/ MLAs, Orders Fresh Audit

The state security issue courted attention after broad-daylight killing of singer Sidhu Moosewala, days after his security cover was partially withdrawn. The lead petition was preferred by former Deputy Chief Minister of Punjab. Other petitioners include from politicians from SAD and Congress.

The protectees alleged that under the new political dispensation, the security covers of 184 Ex-Ministers and former MLAs were withdrawn on pick and choose basis without assessing the threat perception. Even, no notice was issued to them.

It was further contended that the impugned action of withdrawal or decategorization of security was brought under public domain, which has further aggravated their threat perception. (State security review done by the Committee on March 29 and thereafter have come under public domain).

In this context, the Court observed that withdrawal of security cover may lead to "subjective events" prompting inimical anti-social elements to take drastic step to overcome the decategorized security and attack the protectee. However, no general opinion can be formed in this regard.

It further ordered that existing security cover provided to them, even under interim orders of the Court, shall remain in force till fresh assessment is made. One security personnel shall be provided to those who have not been provided any protection.

The bench said that this interim arrangement will not create any rights in the Petitioners' favour since security is a State subject and the exercise of making lawful assessment of threat has to be left to the competent authority.

"While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this 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 entertained by a protectee or individual. The threat perception has to be real, based on intelligence reports from different quarters."

It went on to add,

"The police officers are recruited, trained and maintained at a huge cost to be borne by the taxpayers. These trained police officers/officials are to be deployed for the protection of the community. 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 matter was accordingly disposed of.