Date of the Judgment: January 12, 2022
Citation: Not Available
Judges: N.V. Ramana (Chief Justice of India), Surya Kant J., Hima Kohli J.
Following a significant security lapse during the Prime Minister’s visit to Firozpur, Punjab, the Supreme Court of India intervened to ensure a thorough and impartial investigation. This case, initiated by Lawyers Voice, an NGO, highlights the critical importance of maintaining the highest standards of security for the nation’s leaders. The Court’s decision to form an independent committee underscores its commitment to addressing the serious concerns raised by the incident.
Case Background
On January 5, 2022, the Prime Minister’s convoy was held up on a flyover for approximately 20 minutes in Hussainiwala, Firozpur, Punjab. This incident prompted Lawyers Voice, an NGO, to file a writ petition before the Supreme Court, seeking an investigation into the security breach. The petitioner argued that the incident was a grave security lapse that could have had significant repercussions. The petitioner sought directions for the Court to take cognizance of the matter and initiate an independent investigation.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 5, 2022 | Prime Minister’s convoy stuck on a flyover in Firozpur, Punjab. |
| January 6, 2022 | Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India issues show cause notices to various functionaries of the State of Punjab. |
| January 7, 2022 | Supreme Court hears the matter and directs preservation of records. |
| January 12, 2022 | Supreme Court appoints an Enquiry Committee to investigate the security breach. |
Course of Proceedings
The Supreme Court took up the matter on January 7, 2022, after hearing the arguments from the petitioner, the Union of India, and the State of Punjab. The Court directed the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to secure and preserve all records related to the Prime Minister’s visit. Additionally, the Director General of Police, Union Territory of Chandigarh, and an officer of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) were directed to assist in securing and seizing the records. A compliance report was submitted stating that the records had been secured and placed in the custody of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The State of Punjab had also constituted a committee to investigate the lapses. However, the petitioner argued that the State’s committee was an attempt to be a judge in its own cause, given the serious allegations against the State authorities. The Union of India also supported the need for an independent inquiry. The State of Punjab, while initially defending its actions, also expressed willingness for an independent inquiry.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court considered the Special Protection Group Act, 1988 (referred to as “the Act” in the judgment), along with the relevant contents of the Blue Book. The Court noted that the Act provides a comprehensive framework for ensuring the proximate security of the Prime Minister, former Prime Ministers, and their families. The Blue Book outlines the detailed procedures to be followed by State authorities and the Special Protection Group (SPG) to ensure the safety and security of the Prime Minister during state visits. The Court emphasized that any lapse in this regard could lead to serious consequences.
Arguments
The petitioner, Lawyers Voice, contended that the security breach was a serious lapse that endangered the Prime Minister’s safety. They argued for an independent investigation to identify those responsible and to implement measures to prevent future occurrences.
The Union of India supported the petitioner’s submissions and also requested a detailed independent inquiry to determine the causes and responsibilities for the security breach.
The State of Punjab, while initially defending its actions, also expressed its willingness for an independent inquiry ordered by the Supreme Court. They argued that the Ministry of Home Affairs had already held the State officers guilty through show cause notices, creating a bias against them. They maintained that their agencies had not committed any dereliction of duty.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s Submission |
|
| Union of India’s Submission |
|
| State of Punjab’s Submission |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for the Enquiry Committee:
- What were the causes for the security breach for the incident on 5th January 2022?
- Who are responsible for such a breach, and to what extent?
- What should be the remedial measures or safeguards necessary for the security of the Hon’ble Prime Minister or other Protectees?
- Any suggestions or recommendations for improving the safety and security of other Constitutional functionaries.
- Any other incidental issue that the Committee may deem fit and proper.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Causes for the security breach on 5th January 2022 | The Court appointed an Enquiry Committee to investigate the causes of the security breach. |
| Responsibility for the security breach | The Enquiry Committee was tasked to determine who was responsible and to what extent. |
| Remedial measures for security of the Prime Minister and other protectees | The Enquiry Committee was directed to suggest remedial measures and safeguards. |
| Suggestions for improving the safety and security of other Constitutional functionaries | The Enquiry Committee was asked to provide suggestions and recommendations. |
| Any other incidental issue | The Enquiry Committee was empowered to consider any other incidental issue it deemed fit. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the provisions of the Special Protection Group Act, 1988 and the guidelines in the Blue Book while deciding the matter.
| Authority | How it was considered |
|---|---|
| Special Protection Group Act, 1988 | The Court noted the comprehensive nature of the Act in ensuring the security of the Prime Minister. |
| Blue Book | The Court referred to the detailed procedures outlined in the Blue Book for the security of the Prime Minister during state visits. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Petitioner’s submission for independent inquiry | The Court accepted the submission and appointed an independent Enquiry Committee. |
| Union of India’s submission for detailed inquiry | The Court acknowledged the need for a detailed inquiry and included it in the terms of reference for the Enquiry Committee. |
| State of Punjab’s willingness for independent inquiry | The Court considered this willingness while deciding to appoint an independent committee. |
The Court noted that the blame game between the State and Central Governments was not a solution to the matter. The Court emphasized the need for a robust mechanism to respond to such critical situations. The Court found merit in the petitioner’s submission that the authorities responsible for the lapse needed to be identified and that new measures were needed to prevent future occurrences.
The Court appointed an Enquiry Committee consisting of:
✓ Justice Indu Malhotra (Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India) as Chairperson,
✓ Director General or his nominee not below the rank of Inspector General of Police of National Investigation Agency,
✓ Director General of Police, Union Territory of Chandigarh,
✓ Additional Director General of Police (Security), State of Punjab,
✓ Registrar General, Punjab and Haryana High Court as Member-cum-Coordinator.
The Court directed that the entire record seized pursuant to the Court’s order dated January 7, 2022, be handed over to the Chairperson of the Enquiry Committee. The Union of India and the State Government were directed to provide full assistance to the Enquiry Committee. The inquiries ordered by the Central Government and the State Government were kept in abeyance until the conclusion of the proceedings of the Enquiry Committee.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to appoint an independent enquiry committee was driven by several key considerations. The Court recognized the gravity of the security breach during the Prime Minister’s visit to Firozpur, acknowledging that such lapses could have severe consequences. The Court emphasized the need for a thorough and impartial investigation to determine the causes of the breach and identify the responsible parties. It also highlighted the importance of implementing remedial measures to prevent similar incidents in the future.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need for thorough investigation | 30% |
| Importance of impartial inquiry | 25% |
| Gravity of the security breach | 25% |
| Need for remedial measures | 20% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s decision was influenced more by the legal aspects, particularly the need to uphold the rule of law and ensure accountability. However, the factual aspects of the case, such as the details of the security breach, also played a role in the Court’s decision-making process.
Logical Reasoning
The Supreme Court considered various interpretations and arguments before arriving at its decision. The Court noted the blame game between the State and Central Governments, emphasizing that such disputes would not resolve the issue. The Court also considered the fact that the State of Punjab had already constituted its own committee, but recognized the need for an independent inquiry to ensure impartiality. The Court rejected the idea of relying on one-sided inquiries and instead opted for a judicially trained independent mind to lead the investigation.
The Court’s decision was based on the need to ensure a thorough, impartial investigation into the security breach. The Court aimed to identify those responsible and implement measures to prevent similar incidents in the future. The decision was also aimed at upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability for lapses in security protocols.
The Supreme Court’s decision was a unanimous one, with all three judges concurring on the need for an independent enquiry.
“It is not necessary for us to elucidate more on facts as the lapse regarding the breach of security of the Prime Minister during his visit to Firozpur on 5th January, 2022 is not seriously disputed by either party.”
“We, therefore, find merit in the submission of Shri Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that not only are the Officer(s)/Authority responsible for the above-stated lapse liable to be identified, but there is also a greater urgency to evolve new measures that may ensure there is no recurrence of such lapses in the future.”
“Keeping the above submissions made by the parties in view, we are of the considered opinion that these questions cannot be left to be resolved through one-sided enquiries.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of ensuring the safety and security of the Prime Minister.
- ✓ An independent Enquiry Committee has been appointed to investigate the security breach that occurred during the Prime Minister’s visit to Firozpur, Punjab.
- ✓ The Committee is tasked with determining the causes of the breach, identifying those responsible, and suggesting remedial measures.
- ✓ The Court has directed that all records related to the incident be handed over to the Committee.
- ✓ The inquiries ordered by the Central Government and the State Government have been kept in abeyance until the Committee concludes its proceedings.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that:
✓ The entire record seized pursuant to the Court’s order dated January 7, 2022, be handed over to the Chairperson of the Enquiry Committee within three days.
✓ The Union of India and the State Government are directed to provide full assistance to the Enquiry Committee for completion of the assigned task.
✓ The inquiries ordered by the Central Government and the State Government shall be kept in abeyance till the conclusion of the proceedings of the Enquiry Committee.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that the Supreme Court has the power to appoint an independent committee to investigate matters of national importance, especially those involving the security of high constitutional functionaries. This case reinforces the judiciary’s role in ensuring accountability and transparency in matters of national security. The case also highlights the importance of following established protocols for the security of the Prime Minister and other protectees. There is no change in the previous positions of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to appoint an independent Enquiry Committee to investigate the security breach during the Prime Minister’s visit to Firozpur, Punjab, underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring accountability and transparency in matters of national security. The Court’s intervention highlights the importance of adhering to established security protocols and the need for a robust mechanism to respond to critical situations. The outcome of the Enquiry Committee’s investigation will likely have significant implications for future security arrangements for the Prime Minister and other constitutional functionaries.