The Union of India on Wednesday informed the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court that the ministry of home affairs (MHA) is “reconsidering and examining afresh” the plea for ‘Z+’ category security cover filed by S Vignesh Shishir, a BJP member who has filed multiple petitions in the high court against Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
Taking note of the Central government’s submission, a division bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Zafeer Ahmad observed that it legitimately expects that the “right to life and personal liberty of a citizen is ensured in its letter and spirit”.
Shishir, a Karnataka-based BJP worker, has moved an application in his own pending petition alleging a disproportionate assets claim against Rahul Gandhi, wherein he sought a decision on his application filed before the MHA seeking appropriate security. Just days ago, Shishir had approached the HC seeking an upgrade from his current round-the-clock protection of one CAPF personal security officer (PSO) to an all-India Z-plus security cover.
In Wednesday’s hearing, deputy solicitor general of India SB Pandey placed written instructions on record on behalf of the Union government. The instructions revealed that while Shishir’s initial request for enhanced security cover (Z+) was not recommended by the Central security agency “in the absence of any specific threat”, considering some subsequent developments and Shishir’s representation, his plea was being reconsidered and examined afresh by the competent authority.
In the meantime, MHA has advised the state governments of Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, and Kerala, and the Delhi Police, to suitably address Shishir’s security concerns based on local threat perceptions.
The bench was further apprised that an appropriate order would be passed by the competent authority “at the earliest” and the same shall be intimated to Shishir and consequential steps shall be taken.
Appearing in person, Shishir submitted certain photographs showing that he is provided ample security when attending court proceedings anywhere in India.
However, he pointed out that when he does not attend court or remains alone, he is protected by only one CRPF personal security armed with a pistol.
Therefore, referring to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, he sought an interim direction for heightened security, which is in the interest of justice until the Central Government’s competent authority takes an appropriate decision.
The court, however, refused to pass any orders, noting that if the applicant is indeed provided appropriate security while attending court proceedings, the competent agency “would be knowing about the fact that the applicant is facing some threat perceptions.”
