The
Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Centre's decision to grant
state security to a "private businessman from Mumbai" and not paying
heed to the security of the common man.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the Centre’s decision to
grant state security to a “private businessman from Mumbai” and not
paying heed to the security of the common man. “A five-year-old girl
would not have been raped if there was proper security in the capital,”
the court said, referring to the recent kidnapping and rape of a minor
by her neighbour in New Delhi.
The court did not name Mukesh Ambani, who was recently provided with Z security by the Union home ministry, but it is evident that the court was referring to him. It asked the Centre to explain why it took the step of providing security to a “businessman in Mumbai”.
“If there is a threat perception, then he must engage private security personnel,” said a bench headed by justice GS Singhvi. “Private businessmen getting security is prevalent in Punjab, but that culture has gone to Mumbai. We are not concerned about the security of X,Y,Z persons, but about the security of common man.”
“We read in the newspapers that the ministry of home has directed providing for CISF security to an individual. Why is state providing security to such a person?” justice Singhvi asked.
The case will be heard on July 9.
Security for rich; poor remain vulnerable
Last month, the Union home ministry decided to provide Z security to Mukesh Ambani. The decision came after he claimed that the Indian Mujahideen hand-delivered a letter to his office, threatening to harm him as well as attack his residence. Ambani is footing the bill for the top-grade security, usually reserved for prominent politicians.
In the case involving the rape of a minor, the police admitted that they did not send search teams to the building where the girl was raped. A policeman even offered Rs2,000 to her father as bribe to hush up the matter.
kushank
pgdm 2nd sem
The court did not name Mukesh Ambani, who was recently provided with Z security by the Union home ministry, but it is evident that the court was referring to him. It asked the Centre to explain why it took the step of providing security to a “businessman in Mumbai”.
“If there is a threat perception, then he must engage private security personnel,” said a bench headed by justice GS Singhvi. “Private businessmen getting security is prevalent in Punjab, but that culture has gone to Mumbai. We are not concerned about the security of X,Y,Z persons, but about the security of common man.”
“We read in the newspapers that the ministry of home has directed providing for CISF security to an individual. Why is state providing security to such a person?” justice Singhvi asked.
The case will be heard on July 9.
Security for rich; poor remain vulnerable
Last month, the Union home ministry decided to provide Z security to Mukesh Ambani. The decision came after he claimed that the Indian Mujahideen hand-delivered a letter to his office, threatening to harm him as well as attack his residence. Ambani is footing the bill for the top-grade security, usually reserved for prominent politicians.
In the case involving the rape of a minor, the police admitted that they did not send search teams to the building where the girl was raped. A policeman even offered Rs2,000 to her father as bribe to hush up the matter.
kushank
pgdm 2nd sem
No comments:
Post a Comment