Carry out fresh assessment of threat to protectees: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Chandigarh, August 23

Making it clear that “de-categorisation of security” may sometimes prompt inimical anti-social elements to take drastic step and attack the protectees, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the competent authority to carry out fresh assessment of their security threats. The authority, in the process, has been asked to consider available inputs from different agencies, including state and Central agencies.

Justice Raj Mohan Singh made it clear that the exercise was required “to ward off continued apprehension of the protectees in view of bringing the issue of withdrawal of security under public domain”. The Bench also made it clear that the existing security cover provided to the protectees even under the court orders would remain in force till fresh assessment.

The state was also asked to form an opinion on the basis of threat perceptions before acting in accordance with law in cases of individuals sans protection seeking directions from the court for security cover. “Till such time, one security personnel shall be provided to them as well.”

Justice Raj Mohan Singh ruled the interim arrangement would remain in force specifically till fresh assessment was conducted in accordance with the State Security Policy without creating any equitable right of consideration in favour or against the protectees.

The directions came on 45 petitions on the issue, including one by Punjab’s former deputy Chief Minister OP Soni through counsel Madhu Dayal. He was seeking the quashing of order dated May 11 de-categorising his security from “Z” and the withdrawal of security personnel.

Justice Raj Mohan Singh asserted security issue was not a static phenomenon, but a dynamic process and reviews had to be done on periodical basis by assessing the security threat to the protectees on the basis of official inputs by different agencies.

Justice Raj Mohan Singh observed the police officers were recruited, trained and maintained at a huge cost, to be borne by the taxpayers, as per the State Security Policy. They were to be deployed for the protection of the community and their provision to individuals for their protection at the taxpayers’ costs had to be viewed as an exception and not a rule.

Justice Raj Mohan Singh added the court could not “substitute itself in place of the competent authority and cannot substitute its decision for that of competent authority”. “The demand for 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 at the state’s expense by using taxpayers’ money. 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…”

Observations by court

• Personal security cover cannot be claimed as a matter of right and in perpetuity. The threat has to be assessed on the basis of intelligence inputs.
• The demand for security cannot be on the basis of displaying an authority of symbol or to flaunt the status.
• Security issue is not a static phenomenon, but a dynamic process and reviews have to be done.