Law Insider India

Legal News, Current Trends and Legal Insight | Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Plea filed in Delhi High Court for seeking directions of Civil, Military Authorities to act under SPG

2 min read
SPG Commando India Security Military Law Insider

Nishka Srinivas Veluvali

Published On: January 25, 2022 at 17:18 IST

The Petition was filed before the Delhi High Court seeking an Order to all the Civil as well as the Military Authorities to act under the superintendence of the Special Protection Group (SPG) to make sure the security of Prime Minister.

The Bench consisting of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh primarily were convinced to direct the Respondents to consider this Petition as a representation.

Although, Standing Counsel Amit Mahajan informed the Court that the Plea might have conjoining effects with the Plea that is still unresolved in the Supreme Court.

Advocate V Govinda Ramanan, representing the Petitioner submitted to the Court that the current plea is restricted to the point of Law that the SPG should have the supervision powers over Prime Minister’s safety as per the Section 14 of the Special Protection Group Act.

The Petition argued that, As per the media reports it has also come out in the public domain that the confidential route of the Hon’ble Prime Minister was also leaked, thereby, putting him and the life of the common citizens at risk, which, inter-alia, is also Violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It has also been seen that the Govt. of Punjab, including the Police officials of the State, instead of coming to the aid of the Respondent No.2 i.e., Special Protection Group in terms of Section 14 of the SPG Act, 1988 were creating obstacles in the proximate security of the Hon’ble Prime Minister”.

The Petitioner also argued that the country has already faced the consequences of such security lapses highlighting the Assassination of two former Prime Ministers and therefore such lapses might portray as threat to the National Security.

However, after considering both the arguments, the Court has adjourned the matter for April 30, 2022.