Supreme Court Appoints Committee to Investigate Prime Minister’s Security Breach: Lawyers Voice vs. State of Punjab (2022)

Date of the Judgment: January 12, 2022
Citation: Not Available
Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant, J, Hima Kohli, J. This was a three-judge bench with a unanimous opinion authored by N.V. Ramana, CJI.
Can a security lapse during a Prime Minister’s visit be investigated by a committee appointed by the State where the lapse occurred? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a writ petition concerning a security breach during the Prime Minister’s visit to Firozpur, Punjab. The Court appointed an independent committee to investigate the matter, emphasizing the need for an impartial inquiry.

Case Background

On January 5, 2022, during a visit to Hussainiwala, Firozpur district, Punjab, the Prime Minister’s convoy was held up on a flyover for approximately 20 minutes. Lawyers Voice, an NGO, filed a writ petition seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention, alleging a grave security breach. The petitioner sought directions for the collection of documents, fixing responsibility, and initiating departmental action against those responsible for the lapse. The petitioner contended that the incident was a serious security breach that could have had significant repercussions.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court took up the matter on January 7, 2022, after hearing 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 scheduled tour. The Director General of Police, Union Territory of Chandigarh, and an officer of the National Investigation Agency were directed to assist in securing the records. The State of Punjab had also constituted a committee to investigate the lapses. However, the petitioner argued that the State’s committee was biased. The State of Punjab, on the other hand, contended that the Central Government had already deemed the State officers guilty by issuing show-cause notices. The State also expressed willingness for an independent inquiry.

Legal Framework

The Court considered the Special Protection Group Act, 1988, which provides a comprehensive framework for the proximate security of the Prime Minister. The Court also noted the importance of the “Blue Book,” which contains detailed procedures for State authorities and the Special Protection Group (SPG) to ensure the safety and security of the Prime Minister during state visits. The Court highlighted that any lapse in these procedures could lead to serious consequences.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The incident constitutes a grave security breach.
• The State of Punjab’s inquiry committee is biased.
• There is a need for an independent inquiry to identify those responsible and to prevent future lapses.

Union of India’s Arguments:

• Supported the petitioner’s submission for a detailed independent inquiry.

State of Punjab’s Arguments:

• The Central Government had already deemed the State officers guilty through show-cause notices.
• No dereliction of responsibility by the State Government for the security of the Prime Minister.
• Expressed willingness for an independent inquiry ordered by the Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for the Enquiry Committee:

1. What were the causes for the security breach for the incident on 5th January 2022?
2. Who are responsible for such a breach, and to what extent?
3. What should be the remedial measures or safeguards necessary for the security of the Hon’ble Prime Minister or other Protectees?
4. Any suggestions or recommendations for improving the safety and security of other Constitutional functionaries.
5. Any other incidental issue that the Committee may deem fit and proper.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

• The Special Protection Group Act, 1988: The Court examined the legislative scheme of the Act to ensure the proximate security of the Prime Minister.
• The Blue Book: The Court referred to the detailed procedures in the Blue Book for the safety and security of the Prime Minister during state visits.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the Special Protection Group Act, 1988* to highlight the importance of proximate security for the Prime Minister. The Court also relied on the “Blue Book” to emphasize the detailed procedures that must be followed by State authorities and the SPG to ensure the Prime Minister’s safety during state visits.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the need for an impartial inquiry into the security breach, given the serious nature of the incident and the potential for future lapses. The Court noted the blame game between the State and Central Governments and stressed the need for a robust mechanism to respond to such critical situations. The Court also considered the comprehensive legislative scheme of the Special Protection Group Act, 1988, and the detailed procedures outlined in the Blue Book.

The Court’s reasoning was influenced by the need for an independent investigation, the seriousness of the security lapse, and the importance of preventing future occurrences. The Court emphasized that a judicially trained mind, assisted by security experts, would be best placed to effectively address all issues.

Key Takeaways

• An independent committee was appointed to investigate the security breach of the Prime Minister during his visit to Firozpur, Punjab.
• The committee is chaired by a former Supreme Court Judge and includes members from various security agencies and the High Court.
• The Court emphasized the importance of a thorough and impartial inquiry to identify those responsible and prevent future lapses.
• The Court highlighted the need for a robust mechanism to respond to such critical situations.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• An Enquiry Committee was appointed, comprising Justice Indu Malhotra (Chairperson), a nominee of the Director General of the National Investigation Agency, the Director General of Police of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the Additional Director General of Police (Security) of the State of Punjab, and the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Member-cum-Coordinator).
• The Enquiry Committee was tasked to investigate the causes of the security breach, identify those responsible, suggest remedial measures, and provide recommendations for improving the safety and security of Constitutional functionaries.
• The committee was asked to submit its report at the earliest.
• The records seized by the Punjab and Haryana High Court were to 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 enquiries ordered by the Central Government and the State Government were kept in abeyance till the conclusion of the proceedings of the Enquiry Committee.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in matters concerning the security of the Prime Minister, an independent inquiry is necessary to ensure impartiality and thoroughness. This case also emphasizes the importance of adhering to the procedures outlined in the Special Protection Group Act, 1988 and the Blue Book. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court appointed an independent committee to investigate the security breach during the Prime Minister’s visit to Firozpur, Punjab. The Court emphasized the need for an impartial inquiry and directed the committee to submit its report at the earliest. The decision underscores the importance of ensuring the safety and security of the Prime Minister and other Constitutional functionaries.