LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Nadeem Qureshi (Advocate/ nadeemqureshi1@gmail.com)     26 June 2013

Before the supreme court a minister and an ordinary person

On issues related to right to life and personal liberty, a minister and an ordinary person are treated alike in the Supreme Court, a bench of two judges said on Monday.

The apex court bench of Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice Ranjan Gogoi said “before the Supreme Court a minister and an ordinary person under Article 21 are the same” and stayed the order of the Allahabad High court directing the Uttar Pradesh government to restore the security cover of an ex-minister.


The high court by its June 19 and June 21 order had directed the government to restore the security cover of the previous Mayawati government’s minister Ramveer Upadhyaya and provide government security to another VIP identified as Vinod Singh.

The high court asked the state government to charge 10 per cent of the cost to provide four gunmen to protecting Vinod Singh.The apex court has now put on hold the high court order.The judges’ decision came after senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Mr Upadhyaya, told the court that his client was a four-time legislator and his wife was a Lok Sabha member and they were both under threat

He told the court that Mr Upadhyaya’s security cover was taken away after the Samajwadi Party government led by Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav came to power.

Appearing for the government, counsel Ravi P. Mehrotra said Mr Upadhyaya’s security cover was withdrawn after a review.

Mr Mehrotra wondered if it was justified for the high court to embark upon the exercise to judicially review the government’s decision.

He told the court that Mr Upadhyaya was provided four security personnel and he was paying part of the cost of the facility.

While continuing the stay on the high court’s June 19 order with respect to Mr Upadhyaya and staying the June 21 high court order with respect to Mr Singh, the apex court issued notices to both the security seekers.

 

The case will next come up for hearing on July 9.



Learning

 1 Replies

Anjuru Chandra Sekhar (Advocate )     26 June 2013

Politicians want govt. appointed gunmen because the private security personnel cannot dare to open fire at will because they might individually face legal problems.  On the other hand govt. appointed gunmen "can be managed (educated)" to open fire at will against their political enemies. As government itself appointed them, when they fire at the most it will become an encounter rather than a case against them individually.  That is why private security personnel though stronger and sturdier than pot bellied govt. police they prefer govt. police to accompany them.  When gun is with them what difference does it make whether they are pot-bellied or Arnold Schwajngers?  What is the use of having gunmen if they do not have power to fire at will and though told that they will be defended at any cost by politicians they do not open fire at will?  Police gunmen are most efficient for politicians. 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register