Facts:
On January 5, 2022, when the Hon’ble Prime Minister visited Hussainiwala, District Firozpur, State of Punjab, there was a significant delay of about 20 minutes on a flyover, raising concerns about the adequacy of security measures for the Prime Minister’s safety.
In response, both the State of Punjab and the Home Ministry initiated separate committees to investigate the security breach. Additionally, the State of Punjab issued show-cause notices to various officials, including the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police, displaying their seriousness in addressing the matter.
Lawyers Voice, an NGO dedicated to public interest causes and representing advocates nationwide, filed a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court. The petition sought the Court’s intervention to address the serious security lapse attributed to the Respondents (State of Punjab and others) regarding the Prime Minister’s security. In their plea, Lawyers Voice made several requests to the Court, including directing the District Judge of Bathinda to collect all relevant official documents related to the movement and deployment of Punjab police during the Prime Minister’s visit. These documents were considered crucial to evaluate the circumstances leading to the security breach.
Lawyers Voice urged the Court to issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ to hold the responsible authorities accountable for the security lapse. They also sought the suspension of these authorities during an independent departmental inquiry into the incident. Lawyers Voice implored the Court to grant any other necessary writ, order, or direction, considering the seriousness of the breach and its potential impact on the safety and security of the Prime Minister and other high-ranking officials.
On the other hand, the State of Punjab asserted its willingness to cooperate with an independent inquiry and denied allegations of negligence or breach of the Prime Minister’s security. They claimed to be unjustly targeted by a smear campaign and highlighted that the Ministry of Home Affairs had already taken action against certain officers of the Punjab Government based on the incident.
Issues Raised:
The main issues raised in the case of “Lawyer’s Voice vs. State of Punjab & Ors.” are as follows:
- Security Breach: The case revolves around investigating whether there was an intentional and significant breach of security during the Prime Minister’s visit to Hussainiwala, Punjab, and whether the existing security measures were adequate.
- Competency of Investigative Committee: The competence and impartiality of the committee formed by the State of Punjab to investigate the security breach are challenged, giving rise to concerns about its independence and potential influence.
- Need for an Independent Inquiry: Lawyers Voice advocates for the establishment of an independent inquiry committee by the Supreme Court to ensure an impartial and credible investigation into the security breach.
- Deliberate Lapse by Respondents: The case addresses whether there was a serious and deliberate lapse on the part of the authorities responsible for the Prime Minister’s security during his visit.
- Collection of Official Documents: The Court’s consideration includes directing the collection and submission of all official documents related to the Prime Minister’s visit to assess the events leading up to the security breach.
- Fixing Responsibility and Departmental Inquiry: The Court may be requested to issue a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ to assign responsibility to the authorities responsible for the security lapse and to initiate a departmental inquiry, which may involve suspending those responsible.
- Issuing Other Necessary Orders: Lawyers Voice may seek additional directions from the Court in the interest of justice, with the aim of ensuring accountability, transparency, and the prevention of similar incidents in the future, thereby safeguarding public safety and upholding the rule of law.
Contention:
Petitioner- Lawyer’s Voice, the petitioner in the case, strongly argues that the security breach during the Prime Minister’s visit is a matter of utmost seriousness and warrants a comprehensive investigation. They assert that the incident posed a significant risk to the safety and life of the Hon’ble Prime Minister. As an NGO dedicated to advocating for public interest causes and representing advocates across the country, Lawyers Voice believes it is their duty to raise concerns about such security lapses, considering the potential grave consequences.
Lawyers Voice seeks the Supreme Court’s intervention to ensure the establishment of an independent inquiry committee to investigate the incident. They express concerns about the impartiality and competence of the committee formed by the State of Punjab to conduct the investigation. For a credible and unbiased inquiry, the petitioner emphasizes the necessity of an independent committee to uncover any intentional actions, negligence, or lapses on the part of the authorities responsible for the Prime Minister’s security during the visit.
Moreover, the petitioner urges the Court to hold the responsible officials accountable for the security lapse. They request the Court’s direction to initiate a departmental inquiry against these officials, with the possibility of their suspension during the investigation. By taking such action, Lawyers Voice aims to underscore the importance of ensuring that individuals holding responsible positions are held answerable for any shortcomings in the security arrangements for high-profile dignitaries.
State of Punjab- The State of Punjab, as the respondent, responds to the allegations raised by the petitioner. They acknowledge the seriousness of the security breach and assert that they have taken appropriate measures in response to the incident. The State highlights the formation of a committee dedicated to investigating the breach as evidence of their proactive approach to address the issue.
To demonstrate their cooperation, the State presents the showcause notices issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs against their officials, indicating their willingness to participate in an independent inquiry. They emphasize that they are being targeted unfairly through a smear campaign and maintain that none of their agencies committed any deliberate dereliction of duties concerning the Prime Minister’s security.
Rationale:
The Supreme Court’s rationale for taking up the case was driven by the seriousness of the security lapse involving the Prime Minister. The Court recognized the potential repercussions of such a breach and the need for a thorough investigation. The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s plea and directed the Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana High Court to secure and preserve all records related to the Prime Minister’s scheduled tour of Punjab.
Additionally, the Court ordered the Director General of Police, Union Territory of Chandigarh, and an officer from the National Investigation Agency to assist in seizing records from State and Central agencies. The Court emphasized the importance of cooperation from relevant authorities in securing the records and entrusted the Registrar General with their safe custody.
The Supreme Court also considered the legislative framework concerning the security of the Prime Minister, specifically the Special Protection Group Act, 1988, and the Blue Book guidelines. The Court highlighted the need for robust security measures to avoid lapses that may compromise the safety of constitutional functionaries. The Court found merit in the petitioner’s argument for an independent inquiry, and the State of Punjab also expressed its willingness to cooperate with such an investigation.
Defects of Law:
The case does not directly state any specific legal defects. However, it highlights concerns related to security protocols, implementation, and accountability. The occurrence of a security breach involving the Prime Minister despite the presence of the Special Protection Group Act and the Blue Book guidelines raises doubts about their effectiveness and enforcement.
Moreover, the case emphasizes the necessity for a clear and comprehensive legislative framework to ensure the security of the Prime Minister and other constitutional functionaries. The Court’s decision to appoint an independent Enquiry Committee indicates potential inadequacies in the current legal framework to handle such incidents.
Conclusion:
The case of “Lawyer’s Voice vs. State of Punjab & Ors.” underscores the utmost significance of safeguarding the safety and security of constitutional functionaries, particularly the Prime Minister. The Supreme Court’s choice to appoint an independent Enquiry Committee indicates the necessity for a comprehensive and impartial investigation into the security breach. As the case progresses, it is expected to provide more insights into the shortcomings in security arrangements and could potentially result in suggestions to enhance security protocols and accountability mechanisms, aiming to avert similar incidents in the future.
Inference:
The case of “Lawyer’s Voice vs. State of Punjab & Ors.” holds significance due to a severe security breach involving the Prime Minister during his visit to Punjab. The incident raised alarms about the safety of high-ranking officials, necessitating a comprehensive investigation. To ensure an unbiased inquiry, the Supreme Court appointed an independent Enquiry Committee tasked with identifying the causes, assigning responsibility, and proposing solutions. The case underscores the necessity of a robust legal framework to safeguard constitutional functionaries, requiring effective implementation and enforcement of existing laws. The cooperation of both the petitioner and the State highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in such matters.
As a consequence of the case, security protocols may undergo reassessment to prevent future breaches, considering the potential impact on national security arrangements. Balancing security measures with officials’ accountability poses a challenge in this context. The involvement of a public interest advocacy NGO emphasizes widespread concerns about the safety of constitutional functionaries. The Court’s attention to the case reflects its commitment to upholding public interest and the State’s responsibility to protect its leaders. Ultimately, the case’s outcome and the Committee’s recommendations could significantly influence security measures and accountability mechanisms concerning prominent officials throughout the country.
Citations:
- Advocatekhoj.com (no date) Supreme Court judgments: January, 2022: Law library, AdvocateKhoj.
- Lawyers voice V. the state of Punjab, LegalData.in
- Kaur, K (2022) Lawyers Voice vs State of Punjab & Ors [Writ Petition (Civil) no. 13 of 2022], Legal.
- Lawyers Voice v. state of Punjab and others, Supreme Court of India, judgment, law, Casemine.com (no date)
- (No date) Indian kanoon – search engine for Indian law.
Anny Choudhary
O.P Jindal Global University