Criticising the culture of providing excessive security to “all and sundry”, especially MPs, MLAs and their relatives who do not face any security threat, the Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Centre and all states to provide names of the people given the security and the expenditure incurred by the states on it.
A bench headed by Justice G.S. Singhvi said police protection should be given to only those who hold important constitutional posts or face threat to their lives. “Security can be given to the head of state, the Prime Minister, vice-president, Speaker, Chief Justice of India, the heads of Constitutional authority and similar counterparts in the states. Why all and sundry is given red beacon and security. In a recent incident, we heard five people died in Hyderabad because traffic was stopped for 45 minutes for someone,” the bench said.
According to the Supreme Court directive, the state governments have to file affidavits detailing how many persons are given security, their names and designations along with the cost and the total number of policemen deployed in providing the security. The states have three weeks to file the response. “Why should the government not take a decision to scrap and make it specific who can use red lights? We find persons sitting 2,000 km away but in their villages two dozen security people are there... Even mukhia, sarpanch move with red beacon,” the top court said.
The bench was hearing a petition filed by a UP resident on misuse of red beacons in the state. The Centre, however, submitted that security should not be confined only to few dignitaries and protection should be given on the basis of threat perception to an individuals.
The Delhi police, in an affidavit, told the court that security is provided for VVIPs not because of their status or any specific threat but to “facilitate bold and impartial decision making by them”. The police said in its affidavit that security to Union ministers, lieutenant governor, chief minister, Cabinet minister of state and judges of the supreme court and high court are given not on account of their status or specific threat.