The Hindu : New Delhi News : Why high-cost security to certain VIPs, asks Delhi High Court

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Oct 04, 2006
ePaper

New Delhi

New Delhi

Why high-cost security to certain VIPs, asks Delhi High Court

Staff Reporter

`They have tried to overplay the level of threat to their security'

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought a reply from the Union Home Ministry on its submission that certain VIPs enjoying high-level security at the cost of the exchequer had tried to overplay the level of threat to their security in order to become eligible for government accommodation.

A Division Bench of the Court comprising Justice Vijender Jain and Justice Kailash Gambhir asked the Ministry to file a reply by January 23, 2007 on the allegation saying what action it had taken against such VIPs.

The Ministry made the submission in reply to the eight-year-old public interest litigation petition by Delhi High Court lawyer Rajeev Awasthi seeking directions to the city police to improve law and order in the city.

Mr. Awasthi filed the petition in 1998 in the wake of a series of heinous crimes — murders, robberies and bomb blasts — when T.R. Kakkar was the Police Commissioner.

In the submission, the Ministry said: "In its experience, there are cases where protectees have tried to overplay the level of threats to their security in order to become eligible for government accommodations."

The Ministry said that the protectees who had been provided government accommodations on security considerations would be asked to vacate them after serving appropriate notices on them.

In public perception, the VIP security had tended to connote a picture more of a VIP than security. Often, protectees were themselves found to entertain such perception and demand special privileges, the Home Ministry said.

The High Court had in December last year summoned from the Ministry and the Delhi police as many as 71 files concerning providing security to as many "VIPs" under Z, Y and X categories.

The Bench had earlier that year questioned the basis on which Gauri Advani, divorced wife of Jayant Advani, son of the former Union Home Minister, L.K. Advani; the mother-in-law of Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, daughter of the Congress president Sonia Gandhi; advocates Ajay Srivastava and Ajay Aggarwal; political activist Ramesh Dalal; businessmen Sandeep Purie and K.B. Mishra; Special Correspondent of Hindi daily Punjab Kesri, Sunil Sharma; ZEE News reporter Naveen Kumar; and the son-in-law of the former Union Minister for Urban Development, Jagmohan, were provided security at State expense.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

New Delhi