In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Writ petition No- 2967 of 2014 (PIL-Civil)

Dr Nutan Thakur Petitioner

Versus

Union of India Respondent

Index

S No	Description of documents relied upon		Page No
		From	To
1.	List of Dates and Events (separate)	Separate
2.	Memo of Writ Petition
3.	Photo Identity of the petitioner
4.	Annexure No 1 Copy of the Special Protection Group Act 1988
5.	Affidavit

Place- Lucknow                                                    (Dr Nutan Thakur)
Dated-   05/04/2014                                         Petitioner in Person
                                                                                    # 94155-34526

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Writ petition No- 2967 of 2014 (PIL-Civil)

Dr Nutan Thakur Petitioner

Versus

Union of India Respondent

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

S No Date Event

1. 1988 Special Protection Group Act enacted

The Special Protection Group Act (SPG Act) 1988 was enacted to provide for the constitution and regulation of an armed force of the Union for providing proximate security to the Prime Minister of India and former Prime Minister of India and members of their immediate families and for matters connected therewith.

As explained in details in this PIL, the SPG Act along with the arrangement, where special protection is provided only to a limited set of people and is also provided to this limited set of people in all circumstances, whether they actually need or deserve it or not, is prima-facie ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution, particularly in light of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C)No. 25237/2010 Abhay Singh Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. and Slp (C)No.23984/2010 Abhay Singh Vs. Union Of India & Ors and the distinct directions of this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No 6509 of 2013 (PIL-Civil) (Dr Nutan Thakur vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others).

This is a matter having larger public importance and is directly related with public exchequer, State resources and the concept of equality.

Hence this Writ Petition.

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Writ petition No- 2967 of 2014 (PIL-Civil)

Dr Nutan Thakur w/o Sri Amitabh Thakur, r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow ------- Petitioner

Versus

Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi--------- Respondent

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

To,

The Hon’ble Chief Justice and His other Hon’ble companion Judges of the aforesaid Court:

The humble petition of the above named petitioner most respectfully begs to submit as under:

1. That by means of this Public Interest Litigation (PIL, for short) under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner is invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court to kindly issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the respondent, Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and all its instrumentalities to declare the Special Protection Group Act 1988 (SPG Act, for short) as amended from time to time, as being Ultra-vires to the provisions of the Constitution, including Article 14 and hence not to give effects to the SPG Act as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners accordingly pray before this Hon’ble Court to kindly issue a writ of mandamus to the Respondent to provide security known as the Special Protection Group (SPG, for short) security, to one or more persons after the required assessment of each and every individual to whom the SPG security needs to be provided purely on need to need basis and not in the current blanket manner in which it is being used and provided.

The Petitioner declares that she has filed a Writ Petition No 6509 of 2013 (PIL-Civil) (Dr Nutan Thakur vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others) before this Hon’ble Court as regards the grant of State security to different persons in the State of Uttar Pradesh which is under active consideration of this Hon’ble Court, where this Hon’ble Court has already issued many important directions as regards State security. She also declares that she has not filed any other writ petition before this High Court either at Allahabad or at Lucknow on this particular subject matter of SPG Act. The Petitioner also declares that she has not received any notice of Caveat from any person including the respondents by post or otherwise. She also declares that to the best of her knowledge and search, there is no pronouncement as regards the exact matter being presented through this Writ Petition either by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or this Hon’ble Court though there is an order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner Of Police, Delhi & others vs Registrar, Delhi High Court, New Delhi in which the issue of SPG security was dealt with in a completely different context. A copy of the SPG Act is being attached as Annexure No 1.

2. That this is a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) being filed to stop the current discrimination being done by the State between the Prime Minister (PM, for short) of India and his family members and other higher dignitaries (Constitutional and otherwise) and every other citizen of India as regards provision of State security and for stopping the misuse of public exchequer by raising a security force (Special Protection Group- SPG, for short) on state security only for the Prime Minister (PM, for short) of India and his family members, even if it is not needed in individual cases of PMs and their family members and to use this SPG in a much more wider and useful manner for larger State security concerns.

3. That this being a PIL, in pursuance of Rule 1, subrule (3A) of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 the petitioner finds it relevant to present some facts regarding her own credibility. The Petitioner is a citizen of India and is well-known and nationally recognized social activist who is positively contributing to the society in all possible ways. She does not have anything against her of such nature which legally or otherwise bars her from filing this PIL. The matter being presented here is primarily related to appropriate use of State security provisions and to declare the discriminatory SPG Act as being ultra vires to the Constitution.

In pursuance of the above Rule, the petitioner states on oath that the public cause she is seeking to espouse through this Writ Petition is related to appropriate use of State security provisions and to declare the discriminatory sections of SPG Act as being ultra vires to the Constitution. The petitioner again puts it on oath that she is not filing this PIL for any ulterior motive save the stated one nor has she received a single penny through any backdoor activity while filing this PIL. She states on oath that she has no personal or private interest in the matter in any manner. As far as she knows there is no authoritative pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or this Hon’ble High Court on the specific prayers being presented here. She puts it on oath that the result of the Litigation will not lead to any undue gain to her or anyone associated with her or any undue loss to any person, body of persons or to the State.

4. That coming to the matter of the PIL, the Special Protection Group Act 1988 (SPG Act, for short), (Annexure No 1) which received the assent of the president on the 02/06/1988 and was published in the Gazette on 07/06/1988, is an Act to provide for the constitution and regulation of an armed force of the Union for providing proximate security to the Prime Minister of India and former Prime Minister of India and members of their immediate families and for matters connected therewith.

5. That the "Statement of objects and reasons” of introducing the Bill in the Parliament said- “During the last few years, terrorism has been steadily assuming menacing proportions in various parts of the country and abroad. In addition to indulging in wanton killings, arson, looting and other heinous crimes with the object to overawing the Government, terrorists aim to destablise the democratically elected Government by resorting to selective killing of prominent members of the public including those who are in the Government. During the last three years, the present Prime Minister has been under several threats to his life. 2. With a view to providing the proximate security to the Prime Minister and the members of his immediate family, both in India as well as abroad, it has been decided to raise a special force. Accordingly, the Special Protection Group was set up in April 1985 under the Cabinet Secretariat. 3. The Special Protection Group is intended to serve as a single specialised agency consisting of highly motivated professionals charged with the responsibility of ensuring the proximate security of the Prime Minister and the members of his family. 4. It is essential that matters concerning the force should be regulated by a self-contained statute which will also provide the essential legal status to its functioning. 5. The proposed legislation will constitute the force as an armed force of the Union. It will lay down the terms and conditions of service of the members of the force and provide for its control and direction. It has provision restricting the application of some of the Fundamental Rights to the members Of the force in so far this is necessary for the maintenance of discipline. Keeping in view, the exclusive task entrusted to the force, it is proposed to make it obligatory on the part of Ministries and Departments of the Central and State Governments and the Union Territories, Indian Missions abroad and local or other authorities, civil or military, to act in aid of the Group."

6. That subsequently a Bill passed by the Parliament brought forth certain amendment with effect from 25/09/1991, where under every former Prime Minister of India (PM, for short) was brought at par with the existing PM for being extended high security. The following was the statement of objects and reasons made in the Parliament when introducing the amendment: "Statement of objects and reasons- Following the tragic assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi, Government have received reports that indicate that several extremist organisations, inside and outside Indian are conspiring to cause harm to the members of his immediate family. The threat perception emerging from these reports confirms that the danger to tile members of the immediate family of the assassinated ex-Prime Minister is grave and serious. 2. The Central Government have been considering ways and means for providing adequate arrangements for the security of the members of the immediate family of the assassinated ex-Prime Minister consistent with the high level of threat. 3. With a view to ensuring proximate security for the members of the immediate family of such assassinated Prime Minister and assassinated ex-Prime Minister who continue to be under serious threat, it is considered necessary that such security of the said members of immediate family should be brought within the purview of the Social Protection Group. Since the role of the Special Protection Group as at present provided by law is to provide proximate security only to the Prime Minister and members of his immediate family an amendment of the Special Protection Group Act, 1988 is necessary to enable the Special Protection Group to take up the task of providing approximate security to the said members of the immediate family."

7. That the Act was further amended w.e.f. 16/11/1994 to extend the period of security from a period of five years to ten years from the date of the PM demitting office and certain further amendments were made in 1999.

8. That In this Act, “Director” means the Director of the Group appointed under sub-section (I) of Section 5 ; “Group” means the Special Protection Group constituted under section 4; “Member of the Group” means a person who has been appointed to the Group by the prescribed authority whether before or after the commencement of the Act; “members of the immediate family” means wife, husband, children and parents and “proximate security” means protection provided from close quarters, during journey by road, rail, aircraft, watercraft or on foot or any other means of transport and shall include the places of functions, engagements, residence or halt and shall comprise ring round teams, isolation cordons, the sterile zone around, and the rostrum and access control to the person or members of his immediate family.

9. That as per section 4 (l) there shall be an armed force of the Union called the Special Protection Group for providing proximate security to – (i) the Prime Minister and the members of his immediate family, and (ii) any former Prime Minister or to the members of his immediate family- a) for a period of ten years from the date on which the former Prime Minister ceased to hold the office of the Prime Minister; and b) for any period beyond the period of ten years referred to in sub-clause (a) in a case where the level of threat faced by the former Prime Minister or by any member of his immediate family is of such a nature that such level of threat justifies the provision of proximate security to such former Prime Minister of such member of his immediate family, as the case may be

10. That as per section 5(1), the general superintendence, direction and control of the group shall vest in, and be exercised by, the Central Government and subject thereto and to the provisions of this Act and the rules, the command and supervision of the Group shall vest in an officer to be appointed by the Central Government as the Director of the Group.

11. That as per section 13, the Central Government may by general or special order published in the official Gazette, direct that subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in that order, any member of the Group may exercise or discharge such powers or duties as may be specified in the said order for giving effect to the provisions of the Act and as per section 14, it shall be the duty of every Ministry and Department of the Central Government or the State Government or the Union Territory administration, every Indian Mission, every local or other authority or every civil or military authority to act in aid of the Director or any member of the Group whenever called upon to do so in furtherance of the duties and responsibilities assigned to such Director or member.

12. That from the above facts, it is clear that the SPG Act is applicable only for the PM and his family members

13. That it is this provision that is being challenged through this PIL as being against the right to equality as provided in Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner states, based on facts, circumstances and reasons to be presented in the subsequent Paras of this PIL, that these provisions which made the use and application of the SPG Act and consequently the SPG solely for the PM and his family members is not based on reasons, is discriminatory, unreasonable and hence arbitrary, being liable to be declared ultra vires

14. That to begin with, the petitioner would like to quote from what the Hon’ble Supreme Court said in its order dated 14/11/2011 in SLP(C) No.25237/2010 Abhay Singh Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. and SLP (C) No.23984/2010 Abhay Singh Vs. Union Of India & Ors etc- “Although, the prayer made in this petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution is for setting aside the order passed by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court directing consideration of the case of respondent No. 6 for providing 'Z' category security to him and his family members, at the hearing Shri Harish N. Salve, Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that dehors the facts of the case, the Court should examine important issues affecting an important facet of the Constitutional democracy i.e. whether the country should have two categories of citizens, of which one enjoys all sorts of privileges including unwanted security at public expense and is also allowed to use different kinds of symbols which represented the authority of the State in pre-independence era and the fundamental rights to life and liberty of other category are not protected. Shri Salve suggested that the following questions may be considered by the Court: 1.Whether the permission to use signs and symbols of authority, such as beacons, insignia, and convoys/escorts by public servants or any person who holds any office under the States or the Union of India, or any other person, is contrary to Article 18 and 38 and the basic feature of republicanism enshrined in the Constitution? 2. Whether the State was and is under an affirmative obligation to ensure that the vision of the founding fathers to change the perception of the State and its functionaries from rulers to public servants who are to serve rather than govern the people, was implemented in letter and spirit? 3. Whether by virtue of Article 21 read with Article 14, State is under an obligation to afford the same degree of protection to the safety and security of every person irrespective of any office held by such person or status of such person or any other factor? 4. Whether the grant of protection [by way of escorts or otherwise], particularly at the expense of the State, on the basis of an office held by a person or any other factor [other than a perceived need to grant heightened protection on account of aggravated threat to the life of any person on account of his lawful occupation, assessed on an objective basis] is illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional? 5. Whether the State is under an obligation to ensure that any heightened protection granted to any person, or any special security arrangements made for any person, holding public office, is done in a manner that does not violate the principle of republicanism and the provisions or Art. 18 and 21 of the Constitution?”

15. That this Hon’ble Court presented its definite opinion as regards some of the issues raised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court still under consideration before it. In Dr Nutan Thakur (supra), this Hon’ble Court through its order dated 02/12/2013 said in very unambiguous words-“Without going into further details, we are of the view that the question as to whether security cover should or should not be provided cannot be based merely on the ground of an incumbent holding a particular post, say, that of Vice Chancellor or of the holder of a Commission or, as the Heads of Local Bodies. Of course, it may be that certain posts by their very nature and sensitivity do require security cover but this is not true for every holder of a public post. Granting security cover to the holder of every public post, merely because an incumbent occupies that post, renders the purpose of providing such a security cover irrelevant and nugatory. The grant of security cover, it is to be emphasised, is not a perquisite which is attached to a post. Providing security cover involves the expenditure of the resources of the State. Even if a certain charge is recovered from a person, to whom security cover is provided, that still leaves a situation where a person who is entrusted with the duty of providing security cover to a particular individual deprives the community at large of his services. In providing security cover to an individual, it is, therefore, necessary for the State to carry out an assessment which must be based on the balance between the need to provide safety and security to the society at large and the public interest involved in providing security cover to one member of the society, be it a private citizen or holder of a public office. The rationale for providing security cover to private citizens in certain cases, such as for the protection and security of a witness or to a holder of a post, is that there is a public element in ensuring that law and order and the orderly life of the community is not disturbed. Hence, the provision of security cover must be based on an assessment of the need to provide security. This assessment has to be of the security agencies. Merely providing security cover to a post, irrespective of the sensitivity of the post and without an assessment of threat perception, leads to a situation where the security cover becomes a matter of status or a privilege. Security cover is not a matter of status or privilege attached to a post and it is time that this principle is established in no uncertain terms. Otherwise the common citizens who do not have access to the corridors of power, may perceive that such security is provided only to those who have access to power.”

16. That the petitioner states that she could not have presented her case in any better manner than the way the Hon’ble Supreme Court raised certain questions and this Hon’ble Court presented their answers in an absolutely brilliant and scintillating manner.

17. That even at the cost of repetition, the petitioner would humbly beg that the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s observation in Abhay Singh (supra) as regards the important facet of the Constitutional democracy that the country cannot have two categories of citizens, of which one enjoys all sorts of privileges including unwanted security at public expense and is also allowed to use different kinds of symbols which represented the authority of the State in pre-independence era and the fundamental rights to life and liberty of other category are not protected, holds absolutely true in the present case. Here, by promulgating the SPG Act, the Prime Minister and his family members have been brought up as a distinct class of citizen who would enjoy (or have privilege or would be protected) the SPG security while the rest of the citizen would be treated second grade vis-à-vis this elite group. This division of the citizenry in two distinct classes by the SPG Act is definitely unwarranted and improper as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a larger context.

18. That similarly, while the Hon’ble Supreme Court question No 3 clearly meant that by virtue of Article 21 read with Article 14, State is under an obligation to afford the same degree of protection to the safety and security of every person irrespective of any office held by such person or status of such person or any other factor, in this particular case the PM and his family, as a separate class, merely by the virtue of holding a particular post, are being provided absolutely different grade of public security, which is being denied to every other individual, howsoever that individual might need this security at a particular given point of time due to certain given circumstances.

19. That thus while the Hon’ble Supreme Court is thinking and observing in one direction, this discriminatory Act is making provisions to provide a completely different level of State security to certain individuals and their family members, denying it to all other citizen, even in times of desperate and extremely genuine needs.

20. That this becomes all the more serious when it is observed that other than the incumbent PM, even his family members, as defined in the SPG Act, are provided this best possible State protection. Thus, this protection, as per the provisions of the Act, will be provided to these family members, whatever their credentials, their personal worth, their personal acts, their personal needs, their personal conduct and so on. As far as the Act goes, even if the member of the family joins a mafia gang or becomes a smuggler or a land-shark or a person using the State security for absolutely nefarious and unwarranted purposes, the State is bound to provide security under the SPG Act because the Act says and dictates so.

21. That on the contrary, any other individual, howsoever he might be in need of the best security, due to the given circumstances, due to the situations that have developed or due to the genuine security reasons, would not be provided the SPG security merely because he is not the PM or the family member of the PM. It is quite obvious that this is nothing but being completely irrational and arbitrary, it is abjectly discriminatory in nature, it is against the interests of the State and is hence the Act is liable to be quashed as being limited merely to the PM and his family members.

22. That again the question framed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhay Singh (supra) with its rather obvious answer again brings forth the fact that security merely to the PM and ex PM and their family members and at the expense of the State, merely on the basis of an office held by a person and no other factor like the perceived need to grant heightened protection on account of aggravated threat to his life on account of his lawful occupation, assessed on an objective basis is illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional.

23. That as brilliantly presented by this Hon’ble Court in Dr Nutan Thakur (supra), the question as to whether security cover should or should not be provided cannot be based merely on the ground of an incumbent holding a particular post.

24. That again as regards blanket SPG security to all PMs, ex PMs and their family members, this Hon’ble Court has already stated that it may be that certain posts by their very nature and sensitivity do require security cover but this is not true for every holder of a public post so that granting security cover to the holder of every public post, merely because an incumbent occupies that post, renders the purpose of providing such a security cover irrelevant and nugatory.

25. That thus as stated in Dr Nutan Thakur (supra), the grant of security cover cannot be a perquisite which is attached to a post, including the post of PM. When such a security cover cannot be definitely assigned to the PM, it is quite obvious that it cannot be provided in a blanket manner to each ex PM. Again, when in the light of this Hon’ble Court’s order, the PM and ex PM cannot be definitely granted state security, there can be no question to grant SPG security to all the family members, as defined in the SPG Act, of the PM and ex PMs as being arbitrary and as being violative of Article 14.

26. That as stated by this Hon’ble Court, providing security cover involves the expenditure of the resources of the State and deprives the community at large of the services of the security personnel.

27. That thus as stated by this Hon’ble Court, in providing security cover to an individual, it is, therefore, necessary for the State to carry out an assessment which must be based on the balance between the need to provide safety and security to the society at large and the public interest involved in providing security cover to one member of the society, be it a private citizen or holder of a public office.

28. That again as directed by this Hon’ble Court, the provision of security cover must be based on an assessment of the need to provide security and merely providing security cover to a post, irrespective of the sensitivity of the post and without an assessment of threat perception, leads to a situation where the security cover becomes a matter of status or a privilege, which is improper in the eyes of law, which is discriminatory and arbitrary as is happening in the case of the SPG Act, and it is for these reasons that the SPG Act is being challenged as regards being discriminatory and violative of Artivle 14.

29. That the petitioner makes it clear that she never for once differs from the Statement of objects and reasons of the SPG Act which said that during the last few years, terrorism has been steadily assuming menacing proportions in various parts of the country and abroad and that with the object to overawing the Government, terrorists aim to destablise the democratically elected Government by resorting to selective killing of prominent members of the public including those who are in the Government. Similarly she cannot dare to disagree from the historic fact that during the last few decades, few sitting and ex Prime Ministers were murdered. The petitioner also fully agrees that as per security reasons and needs, there could be certain individuals in this country who need special kind of proximate security.

30. That the petitioner again fully agrees with what the Hon’ble Supreme Court said in Commissioner Of Police, Delhi (supra)- “The importance of the office of the Prime Minister in a parliamentary democracy is well understood and needs no elaboration.”

31. That hence the issue is not the importance of the post of PM. The issue is also not that of individual threat to one or more PMs in their individual capacities or that of the relatives of the PMs in their individual capacities. It is perfectly accepted that PMs play an important role in the Indian democratic structure. But this does not, in any manner mean that other Indians, including the other constitutional and non-constitutional authorities, cannot play a role as important as or more important than that of the PM in nation building.

32. That the petitioner strongly refuses to believe that the PM is the only person who is important in the democratic setup. The President, the Vice President, the Chief Justice of India and other Judges of the Supreme Court of India, the Speaker of Lok Sabha, other Ministers in the Union council of Ministers, the Governors, the Chief Ministers, the Chief Justice of various High Courts also play very important roles, which can be considered secondary to none. Similarly, the Chief of the Army, the Naval Chief, the Air Force Chief, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Chief Election Commissioner and many other constitutional and non-constitutional authorities play their own important roles. There are many other civil servants playing an extremely pivotal role in nation building. There are also social activists, political figures, artists, scientists, film stars, sports-persons etc who play their own individual roles in nation building.

33. That if the recipients of Bharat Ratna, the highest civilian award in India, are taken as a measure of acceptance for contribution to nation building at the highest level, out of 43 recipients so far, only 5 have been Prime Ministers of India. The rest 38 have belonged to various other walks of life, including cricketers, scientists, scholars, engineers, artists, freedom fighters et al. Thus nation building, importance and contribution in nation building are not limited in any manner to the PM.

34. That again PM is not even the highest dignitary of the State. It is the President followed by the Vice President. As per the Constitution, the PM is merely there to aid and advice the President who is the head of the State.

35. That even otherwise, the actual role and importance of various posts go on varying with the persons occupying these posts. It is true that when Sri J L Nehru was the PM, situation was different but much changed when Sri L B Shastri became the PM. Even during Sri Shastri’s tenure, his role and position changed after the Pakistan declaration of war vis-à-vis his previous position which was shaky and unclear. Again there was a drastic change in the role and position of PM in nation building when Ms Indira Gandhi became the PM. Even during her own long tenure, her position, role and importance as PM changed drastically after the 1971 Bangladesh war which made her the “Durga” of India from the “Goongi Gudiya” she was once said. To go further in the history of Prime Ministers, Sri Morarji Desai as PM and Sri Charan Singh as PM had very different role to play in nation building because the later was almost completely preoccupied with keeping himself in chair, even which he could not do for long. Similarly Sri Rajiv Gandhi as PM in his role and importance in nation building cannot be equated with Sri Chandra Shekhar in that position, who again was forced to keep all his energies towards remaining in this position. Everyone knows that Sri H D Deve Gouda as PM was hardly present effectively and he somehow passed away his time while Sri A B Vajpayee was a PM in complete control of affairs and was able to make a distinct print on governance. About the current incumbent Sri Manmohan Singh, even a child can tell what role he has in governance and policy-making and where he stands vis-à-vis Ms Sonia Gandhi in real governance, despite the fact that Ms Gandhi is merely the Chairman of a political conglomerate.

36. That all the above mentioned facts are so well known that the petitioner thought not to provide very detailed explanations and proof regarding them. Secondly there are more political in nature, which this Hon’ble Court is not exactly concerned with. Thirdly this is not exactly the subject matter of this PIL but is being used only for general reference and for illustrating a point. But even then if this Hon’ble Court directs the petitioner to bring more evidence to adduce her statements, she can definitely bring all these facts in great details.

37. That thus the above facts amply prove that neither constitutionally, nor in practice, is the PM the only pivotal authority in India.

38. That other than the constitutional authorities, there are many other extra-constitutional persons who tend to occupy the center stage in nation building from time to time. For instance, during the 13 days India against Corruption demonstration, Sri Anna Hazare had become much more important than even the PM and the President, as far as the public perception and media attention goes. Similarly, after the World cup win, Sri M S Dhoni was possibly the most important person in India. When Sri T N Seshan was the Chief Election Commissioner, a time had come when the entire Nation knew only of Sri Seshan and he was the man in whom India reposed its trust.

39. That other than the importance in public eyes and in functionality, there is also the issue of susceptibility to threat. Many persons have different threat perceptions. Hence it is not necessary that all PMs will have equal threat perception just because they occupy the chair of PM. It would be abjectly foolish to believe that the moment one becomes a PM, he becomes threat-prone to equal level as his predecessors. It is also abjectly incorrect to think that all PMs will have equal threat to their lives. This threat will be dependent on individual PM, the overall circumstances, the PM’s background, his own past, his actions, his steps taken, the national and international situations and many more accompanied factors.

40. That what holds true for PMs hold true for ex PMs. One can easily and safely assume that threat level for ex PM Sri Morarji Desai would be different from threat level to ex PM Sri H D Deve Gouda, who have different personal life-style, different personal interest and personal activities and so on.

41. That again what holds true for ex PMs holds true in hugely large measures to family members of PMs and ex PMs. Not all family members of even one PM could be having the same threat perception and similarly family members of different PMs will be having different threat perception.

42. That what the above facts mean is that threat perception to the PMs, ex PMs, family members of PMs and ex PMs is purely an individual based situation and cannot be guided and regulated through some blanket order as if all PMs, ex PMs, family members of all PMs and ex PMs stand at the equal footage as far as providing State security in the form of SPG or otherwise is concerned.

43. That similarly, it is not necessary that only PMs have a special kind of threat perception and the State is responsible to save only the life of PMs and ex PMs along with their family members through a special force and through special legal, functional and operational measures. There can always be situations where a Home Minister, a Defence Minister, a railway Minister, a Science and Technology Minister, even an Agriculture Minister, a Chief Minister of some State, any other functionary of the States or even a common person who occupies no constitutional or bureaucratic position acquires a situation which warrant security of the level no less than that of SPG.

44. That thus summing it up-

(A) Not all PMs, ex PMs, their family members can be treated as equals in security threat

(B) Many others, who are not in the above category, may also be needing the kind of security that SPG provides through the provisions of SPG Act, in no inferior measures than that of the PM

(C) For the above reasons, the SPG Act which makes blanket provisions for all PMs, ex PMs and their family members is arbitrary, irrational, illogical and discriminatory and hence needs to be kindly quashed.

45. That instead the security threat of every PM, ex PM, their family members shall be undertaken on a case to case (individual basis) through whatever proper measure that the State adopts, decides and follows and not in a blanket manner as if these categories are a separate class in themselves who has to be invariably provided this kind of specialized security even if they need it or not, in contrast to the issued raised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhay Singh (supra) and what this Hon’ble Court said very clearly in Dr Nutan Thakur (supra) that state security is not a status symbol in any manner, it cannot be allowed to create different class of citizen, it cannot be rank and position based and it can only be based on case to case basis. Similarly, this kind of superior security shall definitely be provided to others than being presently provided on the need basis, in public interest

46. That as regards the public importance and public import of this petition is concerned, it seems to be quite apparent. As stated earlier, the petitioner has no personal interest in this PIL. She also has no personal grudge against any of those currently enjoying SPG protection because they are far bigger persons to whom she can even compare herself in any manner. The only reason that motivates the petitioner to file this PIL is because of the arbitrariness involved in this issue, the overall import of this arbitrariness and the apparent misuse of public exchequer due to an improper statute which is in violation of the Constitution.

47. That thus as explained in the above Para, the petitioner having no personal interest but definitely having larger number of reasons for being related with larger public interest, constitutes a PIL in the true sense of the word. In this regards, the role of this Hon’ble Court becomes extremely important and highly crucial as the last sentinel of justice and hence the petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the respondent and having no any other efficacious alternative remedy available with him, is filing this petition on the following amongst other grounds

48. That the photograph and the Identity proof are being attached with the Petition

GROUNDS

A. Because the Special Protection Group Act (SPG Act) 1988 was enacted to provide for the constitution and regulation of an armed force of the Union for providing proximate security to the Prime Minister of India and former Prime Minister of India and members of their immediate families and for matters connected therewith.

B. Because as explained in details in this PIL, the SPG Act along with the arrangement, where special protection is provided only to a limited set of people and is also provided to this limited set of people in all circumstances, whether they actually need or deserve it or not, is prima-facie ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution, particularly in light of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C)No. 25237/2010 Abhay Singh Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. and Slp (C)No.23984/2010 Abhay Singh Vs. Union Of India & Ors and the distinct directions of this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No 6509 of 2013 (PIL-Civil) (Dr Nutan Thakur vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others)

C. Because this is a matter having larger public importance and is directly related with public exchequer, State resources and the concept of equality

D. Because there is a need to quash this discriminatory Act and to follow a policy where the security need of PMs, ex PMs and their family members is evaluated on a case to case basis through any prescribed method

E. Because SPG protection, by whatever name, may be needed by persons other than these specific groups who cannot be denied such protection through a discriminatory Act

PRAYER:

Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to-

(a) kindly issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the respondent, Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and all its instrumentalities to declare the Special Protection Group Act 1988 (SPG Act, for short) (Annexure No 1) as amended from time to time, as being Ultra-vires to the provisions of the Constitution, including Article 14 and hence not to give effects to the SPG Act as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, particularly in light of the directions dated 02/12/2013 of this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No 6509 of 2013 (PIL-Civil) (Dr Nutan Thakur vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others)

(b) to kindly issue a writ of mandamus to the Respondent to provide security known as the Special Protection Group (SPG, for short) security, to the Prime Ministers, ex Prime Ministers and their family members, as currently defined in the SPG Act, only after a proper evaluation of their security threat on a case to case individual basis and not in a blanket manner as is being done currently

(c) to kindly issue a writ of mandamus to the Respondent to provide security known as SPG security to persons other than the Prime Ministers, ex Prime Ministers and their family members also, on a need basis, after the required assessment of each and every individual to whom such security needs to be provided at a given point of time in certain given circumstances

(d) Issue any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case for the larger public cause being presented here

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

Writ petition No- of 2014 (PIL-Civil)

Dr Nutan Thakur Petitioner

Versus

State of UP Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

I, Dr Nutan Thakur, aged about 40 years, w/o Sri Amitabh Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, religion Hinduism, education- MA, Phd, profession- Social activism, the deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under-

1. That the deponent is the sole petitioner in the above noted petition and as such she is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, deposed to hereunder

2. That the contents of the paragraphs 1 to

of the Writ petition are true to my personal knowledge,

based on documents and records and believed to be true and

are based on legal advice.

3. That the contents of Annexure No NONE of the Writ Petition are true copies of their original documents.

Place- Lucknow                                              (Dr Nutan Thakur)
Dated-   03/04/2014                                               Petitioner in Person
                                                                              # 94155-34525

VERIFICATION

I, the deponent above named, do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 above this Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed. So, help me God

Signed and verified this the day of 2014 at Lucknow

Deponent

Identification

I identify the deponent, on the basis of records produced before me, who has signed before me.

Advocate

Solemnly affirmed me on at am/pm by the deponent Nutan Thakur, who has been identified by Sri clerk to Sri , Advocate, high court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that she understands the contents of this Affidavit which have been read over and explained to her by me

Oath Commissioner

MINSTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
(Legislative Department)
New Delhi, the 7^th June, 1988- Jyaistha 17, 1910(Saka)

The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the president on the 2^nd June, 1988, and is hereby published for general information:

THE SPECIAL PROTECTION GROUP ACT 1988 [AS AMENDED IN 1991, 1994 & 1999]

An Act to provide for the constitution and regulation of an armed force of the Union for providing proximate security to the Prime Minister of India and * former Prime Minister of India and members of their immediate families and for matters connected therewith.

Be it enacted by Parliament in the Thirty ninth year of the Republic of India as follows:

1. (1) This Act may be called the Special Protection Group Act 1988 (amended in 1991, 1994 & 1999). (2) It shall come into force at once.

2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires;

(a) “active duty” in relation to a member of the Group means any duty as such member during the period when he is posted to physically protected the Prime Minister of India and *the former Prime Minister of India and members of their immediate families, wherever he or they may be;

(b) “Director” means the Director of the Group appointed under sub-section (I) of Section 5 ;

(d) “Member of the Group” means a person who has been appointed to the Group by the prescribed authority whether before or after the commencement of the Act;

(e) “members of the immediate family” means wife, husband, children and parents;

(f) “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act.

(g) “proximate security” means protection provided from close quarters, during journey by road, rail, aircraft, watercraft or on foot or any other means of transport and shall include the places of functions, engagements, residence or halt and shall comprise ring round teams, isolation cordons, the sterile zone around, and the rostrum and access control to the person or members of his immediate family.

(h) all words and expressions used and not defined in this Act but defined in the Indian Penal Code shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that code.

3. Every member of the group shall be subject to this Act, wherever he may be.

4.                  (l). There shall be an armed force of the Union called the Special Protection Group for providing proximate security to –
(i)               the Prime Minister and the members of his immediate family, and
(ii)             any former Prime Minister or to the members of his immediate family-a)            for a period of **ten years from the date on which the former Prime Minister ceased to hold the office of the Prime Minister; and
b)            ***for any period beyond the period of ten years referred to in sub-clause (a) in a case where the level of threat faced by the former Prime Minister or by any member of his immediate family is of such a nature that such level of threat justifies the provision of proximate security to such former Prime Minister of such member of his immediate family, as the case may be:
Provided that, while assessing the level of threat, the Central Government shall take into account the following factors, namely:-
(A)     that the threat emanates from any militant or terrorist organization; and
(B)     that the threat is of grave and continuing nature:

Provided further that the Central Government shall assess the level of threat periodically in such a manner that not more than twelve months shall elapse between two consecutive assessments.

(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1),-
a) any former Prime Minister or any member of the immediate family of the Prime Minister or of a former Prime Minister may decline security;

b) where the proximate security is withdrawn from a former Prime Minister, whether before or after the commencement of the Special Protection Group(Amendment) Act ,1999 such proximate security shall also stand withdrawn from the immediate family members of such former Prime Minister :

Provided that where the level of threat faced by any member of the immediate family of a former Prime Minister warrants proximate security or any other security, such security shall be provided to that member.

(2) Subject to that provisions of the Act, the Group shall be constituted in such manner as may be prescribed and the terms and conditions of service of the members of the Group shall be such as may be prescribed.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, any person or any member of any other armed force of the Union may be appointed to the Group by the Central Government by a general or special order and for such period as may be specified in such order,and the person so appointed shall, during the period of his appointment, be deemed to be a member of the Group, and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply to such person or member.

5. (1) The general superitendence, direction and control of the group shall vest in, and be exercised by, the Central Government and subject thereto and to the provisions of this Act and the rules, the command and supervision of the Group shall vest in an officer to be appointed by the Central Govt. as the Director of the Group.

(2)The Director shall, in the discharge of his duties under this Act, be assisted by such number of Deputy Directors, Assistant Directors, Joint Assistant Directors and other officers as may be appointed by the Central Government.

6. Every member of the Group shall be liable to serve in any part of India as well as outside India.

7. Every member of the Group, not on leave or under suspension,shall, for all purposes of this Act, be always on active duty and may at any time be employed or deployed in any manner which is consistent with the duties and responsibilities of the Group under this Act.

8. No member of the Group shall be at liberty-

(a) To resign his appointment during the term of his engagements; or

(b) To withdraw himself from all or any of the duties of his appointment except with the previous permission in writing of the prescribed authority.

9. Every member of the group shall hold office during the pleasure of the President.

10. (l) No member of the group shall without the previous sanction in writing of the Central Government or of the prescribed authority-

(a) be a member of or be associated in any way with, any trade union, labour union, political association or with any class of trade unions, labour unions or political associations; or

(b) be a member of, or be associated in any way with, any society, institution, association or organization that is not of a purely social, recreational or religious nature; or

(c) communicate with the press or publish or cause to be published any book, letter or other document except where such communication or publication is in the bonafide discharge of his duties or is of a purely literary artistic or scientific character or is of a prescribed nature.

Explanation – If any question arises as to whether any society, institution, association or organization is of a purely social, recreational or religious nature under clause (b) or whether any book, letter or document is a communication or publication in the bonafide discharge of his duties or is of a purely literary, artistic or scientific characyer or is of a prescribed nature under clause (c) the decision of the Central Government thereon shall be final.

(2) No member of the group shall participate in, or address, any meeting or take part in any demonstration organized by any body of persons for any political purposes or for such other purposes as may be prescribed.

11. The prescribed authority may, by order in writing, terminate the appointment of any member of the group in the public interest and such termination shall be deemed to be discharge simpliciter and shall not amount to dismissal or removal.

12. (1) Any member of the Group aggrieved by an order under section 11 may, within thirty days from the date of such order prefer an appeal to a board to be constituted by the Central Govt.

(2) The Board shall consist of such persons as may be prescribed.

(3) The decision of the Board shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court or tribunal.

(4) The Board shall have power to regulate its own procedure.

13. The Central Govt may by general or special order published in the official Gazette, direct that subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in that order, any member of the Group may exercise or discharge such powers or duties as may be specified in the said order for giving effect to the provisions of the Act.

14. It shall be the duty of every Ministry and Department of the Central Govt or the State Govt or the Union Territory administration, every Indian Mission, every local or other authority or every civil or military authority to act in aid of the Director or any member of the Group whenever called upon to do so in furtherance of the duties and responsibilities assigned to such Director or member.

15. No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Group or any member thereof on whom powers have been conferred or duties have been imposed under this Act, or any order issued or any rule made thereunder for anything which is in good faith done or purported to be done or omitted to be done in pursuance of this Act or any order issued or any rule made thereunder or any order issued under any such rule.

16. (1) The Central Govt. may by notification in the official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act.

(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters namely:

(a) the manner in which the Group shall be constituted and the terms and conditions of service of its members under sub section(2) of section 4:

(b) the authorities to be prescribed under section 8, sub-section (1) of section 10 and section 11.

(d) the purposes, other than political purposes, for which a person subject to this Act shall not participate in, or address any meeting or take part in any demonstration under sub-section (2) of section 10.

(e) the person who shall be members of the Board under sub-section(2) of section 12:

(f) any other matter which has to be, or may be, prescribed.

17. Every order issued under section 13 and every rule made under section 16 shall be laid as soon as may be after it is issued or made, before each House of Parliament while it is in session for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both houses agree in making any modification in the order or the rule or both Houses agree that the order or rule, should not be made, the order or rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be: so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that order or rule.

18. (1) The Special Protection Group in existence at the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be the group constituted under this Act.

(2) The members of the Special Protection Group in existence at the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to have been appointed as such under this Act.

(3) Anything done or any action taken before the commencement of this Act in relation to the constitution of the Special Protection Group referred to in sub-section (1) and in relation to any person appointed, shall be as valid and as effective in law as if such thing or action was done or taken under this Act.

Sd/-

Secy. to the Govt. of India.

MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
(Legislative Department)
New Delhi, the 17^th march, 2003/Phalguna 26, 1924(Saka)

The following Act of Parliament received the assent of the President on the 13^th March, 2003, and is hereby published for general information:-

THE SPECIAL PROTECTION GROUP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2003
No.20 on 2003 [13^th March, 2003]

An Act further to amend the Special Protection Group Act, 1988.

Be it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty fourth Year of the Republic of India as follows:-

1. This Act may be called the Special Protection Group(Amendment) Act, 2003.

2. In the Special Protection Group Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in sub-section(l) of section 4, for clause(ii), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:-

“ (ii) any former Prime Minister or to the members of his immediate family….

(a) for a period of one year from the date on which the former Prime Minister ceased to hold office and beyond one year based on the level of the threat as decided by the Central Government, so however that not more than twelve months shall elapse between two consecutive assessments made in regard to the need for proximate security:

Provided that while assessing the level of threat, the Central Government shall take into account among other things, the following factors, namely;

(A)       that the threat emanates from any militant or terrorist organization or any other source, and
(B)              that the threat is of grave and continuing nature;
(b)               on their visits abroad, based on entitlement to proximate security and the level of threat as assessed by the Central Government”

3. In section 5 of the principal Act, in sub-section (2), for the words “Deputy Directors, Assistant Directors, Joint Assistant Directors”, the words “Inspectors General, Deputy Inspectors General, Assistant Inspectors General” shall be substituted.

SUBHASH C. JAIN

Secy to the Govt. of India

Nutan Thakur

Monday, 14 April 2014

Copy of PIL challenging SPG security

Index

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS