Add Tribune As Your Trusted Source
TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My Money
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill ViewBenchmark
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Security provided by Punjab under High Court lens

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Advertisement

Chandigarh, September 21

Advertisement

The security provided by the State of Punjab to its protectees, including the ones not holding public offices, has come under judicial scanner.

Taking up a petition filed by Punjab’s former Deputy Speaker seeking security cover, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has called for a list of protectees.

“Let this court also be informed about the number of persons who have been provided security beyond the State Security Policy-2013, along with list of those persons who have been allowed security, but are not holding any public office, other than any security provided to the judicial officers,” Justice Jaishree Thakur of the High Court has asserted.

Advertisement

The list is to be furnished by the last week of October, when the case comes up for further hearing. The direction came during the resumed hearing of a petition filed against the state and other respondents by Bir Devinder Singh through counsel Rajvinder Singh Bains.

At the onset, Bir Devinder Singh filed a rejoinder giving details of certain former MLAs provided security cover. The rejoinder was filed in an attempt to falsify the stand taken by the respondent-State that the petitioner was not entitled to security cover as a former MLA in accordance with the State Security Policy-2013.

Bains had earlier told the court the petitioner’s security cover was withdrawn unilaterally vide impugned order dated June 23, despite having been provided more than adequate security since 2018.

Claiming that he was not having any security personnel with him as of now, Bains had submitted former MLAs had been provided a minimum of two security personnel, which the petitioner would be entitled to in addition to other security personnel.

Justice Thakur on a previous date of hearing had directed that the petitioner would be entitled to two personal security officers “given the fact that ex-MLAs have been allowed the same”.


Ex-Dy Speaker’s plea

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement