COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI AND ANR. versus REGISTRAR, DELHI HIGH COURT, NEW DELHI

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 432 · Decided: 11-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI AND ANR. 
v. 
REGISTRAR, DELHI HIGH COURT, NEW DELHI 
OCTOBER 11, 1996 
B 
(M.M. PUNCHHI AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
VIP Security-Special Protection Group Act, 198~Section 2(a), 2(g), 
14-Proximate Securi~eaning-Purposive approach-Visits of protectee to 
C court as an accused-SPG cover cannot be lifted from the protectee. 
Constitution of lndia, Art. 136-Jurisdiction--Plenary in na-
tu~Supreme Court can detennine its own jurisdiction. 
Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao, former Primer Minister of India, whose 
D security was covered under the Special Protection Group Act, 1988, stood 
summoned as an accused-~lminal case before the Chief Metropolitan 
Magistrate, Tis H_llZal'fCourts, Delhi. Shri Rao, obliged to appear before 
the criminal ~rt, had to be taken there as a protectee of the Special 
Protection Group. The petitioner, the Commissioner of Potier, Delhi and 
the Director, Special Protection Group, New Delhi approached the Delhi 
E High Court suggesting that the venue of appearance and the place of trial 
of Shri Rao be changed, as on account of the location, situation and 
topography of the Tis Hazari Court Complex, it was almost impossible for 
the Special Protection Group and the Delhi Police to provide to the 
protectee proximate security satisfactorily. The High Court by an ad-
F ministrative order declined their request. The Administrative Committee 
of the High Court held that the provisions of Section 2(g) defining 
'proximate security' were not applicable in the· case of a protectee sum-
moned as an ac_cused in a court case and that Sec.14 of the Special 
Protection Group Act, whereunder the Special Protection Group could 
seek assistance from certain authorities was not attracted in the case of 
G assistance reqliired from the courts; However the Commit!ee did not 
dispute the expressed apprehensions and the threat perception to Shri Rau 
as projected by the appellants. Hence, the petitioners filed petitions under 
Article 136 r/w Article 142 of the Constitution seeking the relief of change 
of venue of trial from Tis Hazari Court to either of the venues suggested 
H in the petition or to any other venue found suitable and consistent with 
432 
COMMR. OF POLICE v. REGISTRAR, DELHI HIGH COURT 
433 
the requirements of the situation, relaxing the administrative decision of A 
the Delhi High Court in order to facilitate the petitioners to carry out their 
statutory duties in the special facts and circumstances of the case. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The will of the Parliament reflected in the Special B 
Protection Group Act is bold, unequivocal, comprehensive and wide in 
nature, no-where permitting withdrawal, limiting or proscribing of the 
proximate security statutorily conferred on the protectee. The mere fact 
that the protectee has to go to court as an undertrial, does not disentitle 
him to the proximate security. His being in transit. or getting within the C 
precincts of the court does not absolve the Group from extending to him 
the proximate security as threat perception to him is in no way diminished. 
The expression "proximate security" has to be given a purposive meaning, 
for, it could never have been intended by the Parliament that security 
would be restricted to places of functions, engagements, residence or halt 
or resorting to the literal meaning. The purposive approach would warrant D 
these places to be wide enough to include visits of a protectee to court,s, 
compulsive or voluntary and in no way can the group be absolved from its 
statutory responsibility on the specious plea that having brought the 
protectee to the court precincts, the obligation to protect him would then 
shift to the court, who may either, under orders, place the protectee back E 
to the Group, or send him into Police or Judicial Custody, shifting in the 
obligation of his protection to others. The protectee is a protectee all the 
time, as long as he keeps breathing for the period of ten years, from the 
date he demits office of the Prime Minister. Even in court custody or other 
custody as ordered by the court, the SPG protective cover cannot be lifted 
from the protectee. It goes with the person of the protectee as the shadow 
with a man. It is for the SPG to devise how to render meaningful protection 
F 
to the protectee wherever he is even when he is under court orders, vide 
Section 2(a). [444-H, 445-A-E] 
1.2. Article 21 of the Constitution which enshrines and guara

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.