The Supreme Court has stayed the directions issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that sought to revoke the security cover provided to IAS officers in Haryana involved in civil administration or quasi-judicial work. Additionally, it stayed the High Court’s directive to furnish details of police security extended to VIPs and VVIPs in Punjab and Haryana.
A bench comprising Justices AS Oka and AG Masih was hearing the State of Haryana’s challenge, represented by Additional Advocate General Lokesh Sinhal, to the High Court’s orders. The High Court had observed that deploying police personnel for VIP security adversely impacts general law and order.
In its April 23 order, the High Court had instructed the Punjab DGP to provide details of the security extended under the State Security Policy. Later, on October 4, it directed the Haryana DGP to submit a personal affidavit ensuring that any security provided to IAS officers engaged in administrative or quasi-judicial duties be withdrawn immediately.
These orders were issued while the High Court was hearing anticipatory bail pleas related to a 2019 case under Sections 377, 388, 389, 109, 115, 116, and 120-B of the IPC. However, the Supreme Court held that such directions were extraneous to the bail matter, cautioning the High Court against addressing issues beyond its scope.
“The High Court, while deciding anticipatory bail petitions under Section 438 of the CrPC, had no reason to delve into matters of VIP security,” the bench observed. “It is evident that the High Court must confine itself to the issue of anticipatory bail and refrain from acting on the directives in its April 23 and October 4 orders,” the bench further clarified.
Observations by the High Court
Justice Harkesh Manuja had highlighted the adverse effects of security deployment, noting the shortage of police personnel for fieldwork as a critical factor impacting law and order. The Court emphasized that prolonged investigations and delayed trials undermine citizens’ faith in the system, posing a threat to public trust.
Referring to a witness in the 2019 case who faced threats and was assigned police protection, the Court stated that such deployments also negatively affect overall law and security conditions. The High Court cited Om Prakash Soni vs. State of Punjab to assert that security cover should not be a status symbol and must be justified under state policy.
The High Court also examined the State Security Policy, 2013, issued by Punjab following the Supreme Court’s directions in Abhay Singh vs. State of U.P. It sought detailed affidavits from the Punjab DGP, including information about threat assessments, the number of individuals provided security, and the costs incurred versus recovered.
Case Details:
State of Haryana v. Rajan Kapur & Anr.
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 14734-14736 of 2024
