In the name of VIP security, businessmen, doctors, corporate honchos, religious leaders, ex-public representatives, journalists, and thousands of people facing criminal charges are protected by State Governments across the country at the cost of the public exchequer.
Data provided by the State Governments to the Supreme Court on Wednesday showed shocking levels of arbitrariness in allotting security to all and sundry under VIP security category.
At the direction of the Supreme Court, which is examining the constitutional validity of providing security to persons other than high dignitaries and constitutional functionaries, the State Governments submitted the list of ‘protectees’. The lists made interesting reading.
Bihar provided a mammoth list of 3,951 persons being provided security, which costed the State Rs141.95 crore per annum. This includes 382 private individuals, besides 70 others — constables, businessmen, MlAs and ex-MlAs — who face criminal charges.
In Uttar Pradesh, the list of “other public functionaries” under security cover comprised doctors, neurosurgeons, Commissioner of Minority languages, member of the Central Film Broadcast Board and Administrative Tribunal, Vice-Chancellors, Chief Information Officer, Additional Advocate Generals and government pleaders.
Punjab has 36 religious leaders and 19 scribes in the list of a total of 1,294 people protected by the State. Gujarat has extended protection to industrialists and corporates while Andhra Pradesh has made it a free-for-all by bringing the president of Andhra Intellectual Forum, president of AP labour Welfare Association, and ex-Samithi president within the meaning of ‘other public functionaries’.
Assisting the court in the matter as amicus curiae, senior advocate Harish Salve prepared a note extracting the relevant information from 11 States/Union territories namely, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Gujarat, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Chandigarh, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka.
After going through the note, the Bench of Justices GS Singhvi and Kurien Joseph said: “Security provided by the State cannot become a status symbol.” Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sidharth luthra, who appeared for Delhi and Punjab, pointed out that in certain cases, security is provided to individuals based on court orders or threat perception.
But the court was more concerned over making available security personnel for the protection of common man at a time when forces are already understaffed. Salve read out from a 2012 report of Bureau of Police Research and Development, which revealed the acute gap between the sanctioned and actual strength of police force in the country.
For instance, Andhra had 89,000 police force against sanctioned strength of 1.32 lakh, Gujarat 50,000 against 1.03 lakh sanctioned posts, and UP has 1.73 lakh against the sanctioned strength of 3.68 lakh.
Court hinted that corporates and industrialists were better off to afford private security without demanding same from the State, while on criminal “protectees”, the Bench noted, “Those who commit crime are bound to have threat perception.” ASG luthra argued that most charges against protectees were false, but Salve’s note belied this claim.
The list of protected persons facing criminal charges in UP alone ran into 393 pages. Of them, some had serious charges of criminal intimidation, attempt to murder and murder. The other states providing security cover to criminals were Punjab (65), Madhya Pradesh (61), Gujarat (45), Karnataka (41), Andhra Pradesh (28), and Delhi (29).
Salve urged the court to consider the issue under three heads, namely use of beacons, sirens and red lights by persons other than constitutional authorities, security provided to persons other than constitutional functionaries without specific assessment of threat, and lastly, closure of roads for facilitating VIP movement. The court will continue hearing on the matter on Thursday.