Tweet
Why do private persons get security at public cost? SC
In a bid to restrict security cover to heads of constitutional bodies alone, the Supreme Court has asked the Centre to provide information on private persons, other than those holding constitutional posts, enjoying police protection at the cost of public exchequer.
The mad scramble for red beacons and resultant chaos on the streets — traffic being blocked for every VIP movement — formed part of concerns expressed by the Bench to undertake trimming of the list of security cover beneficiaries.
Hearing a PIL from Uttar Pradesh which questioned the high security given to Congress MLA Pramod Tiwari from Pratapgarh, the Bench felt that the issue required immediate attention as it had come to light how private persons and their families were flaunting security provided at State expense.
“We have instances where security is given not just to political functionaries but their daughter, son-in-law, children and even father-in-law of the daughter,” a Bench of Justices GS Singhvi and SJ Mukhopadhyay said. It posted the matter for hearing on July 31.
Amicus curiae Harish Salve agreed that persons given red beacons and security included the Central Election Commissioner, Comptroller & Auditor General, Ministers of States, Cabinet Secretary and chairmen of several tribunals. For the start, the Bench proposed to exclude President, Vice-President, PM, Governor, CJI and others.
It allowed room for State-specific security needs, saying, “We will not come in the way of the security forces which are called to make security arrangements in States like Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh.”
In a bid to restrict security cover to heads of constitutional bodies alone, the Supreme Court has asked the Centre to provide information on private persons, other than those holding constitutional posts, enjoying police protection at the cost of public exchequer.
The mad scramble for red beacons and resultant chaos on the streets — traffic being blocked for every VIP movement — formed part of concerns expressed by the Bench to undertake trimming of the list of security cover beneficiaries.
Hearing a PIL from Uttar Pradesh which questioned the high security given to Congress MLA Pramod Tiwari from Pratapgarh, the Bench felt that the issue required immediate attention as it had come to light how private persons and their families were flaunting security provided at State expense.
“We have instances where security is given not just to political functionaries but their daughter, son-in-law, children and even father-in-law of the daughter,” a Bench of Justices GS Singhvi and SJ Mukhopadhyay said. It posted the matter for hearing on July 31.
Amicus curiae Harish Salve agreed that persons given red beacons and security included the Central Election Commissioner, Comptroller & Auditor General, Ministers of States, Cabinet Secretary and chairmen of several tribunals. For the start, the Bench proposed to exclude President, Vice-President, PM, Governor, CJI and others.
It allowed room for State-specific security needs, saying, “We will not come in the way of the security forces which are called to make security arrangements in States like Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh.”
