The Supreme Court recently admitted a petition by a private citizen questioning how a Meghalaya High Court, Chief Justice, could on the eve of his retirement seek to extend the Z-plus category security cover post his own and another judges’ retirement. It is not known to the public as to whether the State Police had, prior to that order, been tasked with assessing the threat perception to the two judges and whether they had actually given an official report of that assessment. In the absence of such information, we are left to assume that such an exercise was not carried out and the Police succumbed to pressure from the High Court because they were themselves not adequately briefed by the State Government’s standing counsel.
The Supreme Court has stated that a private citizen cannot question whether judges require Z-security cover while in service or after their retirement, because that depends on the assessment of the State Police. Meanwhile the apex court has sought an explanation from the State Government on the threat perception to the two retired judges.
VIP security in this country has become a gigantic problem and anyone of any stature wants to avail that facility, if only to demonstrate their own sense of importance. Citizens have been petitioning the law courts to challenge the overused VIP security cover, given at times to undeserving kith and kin of politicians well beyond their tenure in office. That a High Court judge would extend the Z category security to himself and his colleague beyond retirement appears ultra-vires.
In India those provided security include those considered high-risk individuals by the police and local government. Depending on the threat perception to the person, the category is divided into four tiers: Z+ (highest level), Z, Y and X. Individuals under the security blanket include the President, Vice-President, Prime-Minister, Supreme Court & High Court Judges, Service Chiefs of Indian Armed Forces, Governors of State, Chief Ministers and Cabinet Ministers. Z+ category has a security cover of 36 personnel [including 10+ NSG Commando] + [Police personnel]. Z category has a security cover of 22 personnel [including 4 or 5 NSG commando] + [Police personnel]. Y category has a security cover of 11 personnel [ including 1 or 2 commando] + [Police personnel]. X category has a security cover of 5 or 2 personnel [No commando only armed police personnel]. Except in very rare cases the same security cover is extended post retirement.
It is high time that tax payers question this needless security paraphernalia.