The Supreme Court recently stayed the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s orders revoking the security cover of IAS officers in Haryana involved in civil administration and quasi-judicial work. The top court also stayed the High Court’s directive requiring details on police security provided to VIPs and VVIPs in Punjab and Haryana.
Supreme Court Observations
A bench comprising Justices AS Oka and AG Masih found the High Court’s directives unwarranted, emphasizing that the issues of security cover and VIP protection were irrelevant to the anticipatory bail petitions under consideration. The bench ruled that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by addressing matters unrelated to the bail applications.
Justice Oka noted, “The High Court cannot delve into issues unrelated to the anticipatory bail petition, such as security arrangements for VIPs and VVIPs. These directions are unwarranted and cannot be acted upon.”
The top court stressed that the High Court must restrict itself to the anticipatory bail pleas and refrain from passing unrelated observations or directions.
High Court Context
The High Court had, in April 2024, sought detailed affidavits on VIP security cover under the 2013 State Security Policy in Punjab and Haryana, raising concerns over the misuse of public resources. In October 2024, it ordered the immediate withdrawal of security cover provided to IAS officers performing administrative and quasi-judicial functions in Haryana.
Justice Harkesh Manuja of the High Court had argued that excessive deployment of police personnel for VIP security negatively impacts public law and order. He cited judgments emphasizing that public resources should not be used to create a privileged class of individuals enjoying security cover at the taxpayers’ expense.
The High Court also highlighted delays in criminal trials, inadequate police resources, and eroded public confidence in the legal system, prompting its inquiry into the security provisions.
Case Details
The orders were passed while hearing anticipatory bail pleas of individuals charged under Sections 377, 388, 389, 109, 115, 116, and 120-B of the IPC in a 2019 case. The Supreme Court clarified that these unrelated directives violated judicial discipline and must be stayed.
Case Title: State of Haryana v. Rajan Kapur & Anr. Etc.
Case Type: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 14734-14736 of 2024
Lawcutor 