The Supreme Court on Monday expressed surprise over former Ministers getting security cover and questioned an ex-Minister in Uttar Pradesh for seeking police protection.
“Can you get Y security just because you are an ex-MinisterIJ We are unable to understand,” a Bench of justices Gyan Sudha Misra and Madan B lokur asked Ramveer Upadhyay, a Minister in previous Mayawati Government who was stripped of his security when Samajwadi Party came to power in Uttar Pradesh.
The Bench refused to pass any order on the plea of Upadhyay, saying that he should file an application before the Allahabad High Court before whom his case pertaining to police protection is pending.
The Bench, however, said that it would hear his case and would like the assistance of counsel of the Uttar Pradesh Government on June 5 to ascertain the type of threat perception faced by Upadhyay.
Upadhyay was given Y security cover during the Mayawati regime but that was withdrawn by the present Samajwadi Party Government which only provided an armed constable to him for his protection.
Senior Advocate, UU lalit, appearing for the ex-Minister, contended that his client was attacked six times in the past and needed protection. He further argued that that security was withdrawn because of a change of Government in State.
The Bench, however, said that it cannot pass any order without hearing the view of the State Government and posted the matter for hearing on June 5.
Fresh PIl filed against new CAG
A fresh PIl was on Monday filed in the Supreme Court claiming that the appointment of Shashi Kant Sharma as the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) was arbitrary and made without any transparency. The latest challenge to Sharma's appointment comes just over a week after the apex court on May 23 agreed to hear a similar plea.
The fresh petition has been filed on behalf of former Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami, former chiefs of Naval Staff Admiral (retd) RH Tahiliani and Admiral (retd) l Ramdas, former Deputy CAG B P Mathur and five other retired bureaucrats. The petition filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan has sought setting aside of Sharma's appointment contending that it was made arbitrarily and "without any system for selection, without any selection committee, any criteria, and any evaluation and without any transparency".
In their petition, the nine petitioners have also sought a direction to the Centre to "frame a transparent selection procedure based on definite criteria and constitute a broad-based non-partisan selection committee, which after calling for applications and nominations would recommend the most suitable person for appointment as CAG". Earlier petition was filed by advocate Ml Sharma.