VERY IMPORTANT POINTS
1. On account of the threat perception to Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao, former Prime Minister of India, and the fears expressed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, the venue of trial/trials involving Shri Rao may be shifted from Tis Hazari Court complex to another venue.
2. The exemption from personal appearance of Shri Rao, granted by the Supreme Court vide interim orders of 30.9.1996, may continue until the Court concerned requires his presence in the newly venued Court.
3. Even in Court custody or other custody as ordered by the Court, the SPG protective cover cannot be lifted from the protectee as it goes with the person of the protectee as the shadow would a man.
4. The mere fact that the protectee has to go to court as an undertrial, does not disentitle him to the proximate security granted under the Special Protection Group Act.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India-Article 136 r/w 142-Special Protection Group Act, 1988 as amended w.e.f. 16.11.1994-Sections 2(a), 4 & 7-Petition seeking relief of change of venue of trial from Tis Hazari Court, Delhi to either of venues suggested in petition-Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao, former Prime Minister of India stood summoned before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts-Shri Rao had to be taken before Criminal Court as a Protectee of Special Protection Group-Threat perception-Fears expressed by appellants that it was almost impossible for them to provide proximate security satisfactorily to Shri Rao when required to be taken to Tis Hazari Courts on date fixed-Held, venue of trial/trials involving Shri Rao may be shifted from Tis Hazari Court complex to another venue-Appellants directed to submit to High Court a list of places in New Delhi area suitable for converting into a court-High Court to select the new venue-Exemption from personal appearance of Shri Rao may continue until his presence required in newly venued Court.
       (ii) Special Protection Group Act, 1988 as amended w.e.f. 16.11.1994 -Sections 2(a), 4 and 7-Expression "proximate security"-To be given a purposive meaning-Visits of a protectee to courts, compulsive or voluntary-SPG cannot be absolved from its statutory responsibility-Even in court custody or other custody as ordered by Court, SPG protective cover cannot be lifted from the protectee. (Constitution of India-Art. 21).
       Held that the will of the Parliament reflected in the Act is bold, unequivocal, comprehensive and wide in nature, no-where permitting withdrawal, limiting or prescribing 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 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 on resorting to a literal meaning. The purposive approach would warrant these places to be wide enough to include visits of a protectee to courts, 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 to the Group, or send him into Police or Judicial Custody, shifting the obligation of his protection to others. A contrary view expressed on these lines by Shri Bhatt deserves outright rejection. It has to be borne in mind that 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. We shall not be taken to have even remotely suggested or tried to impinge on the power of the Court to deal with the person summoned in accordance with law we wish to lay emphasis that 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 would a man. It is for the SPG to devise how to render meaningful protection to the protectee wherever he is even when he is under court orders, vide Section 2(a). (Para 14)
       Further held : Emphasis need be laid on Article 21 of the Constitution which enshrines and guarantees and precious right of life and liberty to a person, deprivable only on following the procedure established by law in a fair trial, assured of the safety of the accused. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice. (Para 15)
       It is also not disputed that the protectee would have to visit the courts a number of times not only in this case but in other cases too. We are equally conscious that his appearance time and again, would put a lot many people to inconvenience, if it is insisted upon that like any other criminal, he too should appear in court in such conditions. In these circumstances the assessment of the situation made by the appellants would normally require no contradiction particularly when there is no malafide exercise of power. Should the worst happen, the protectee alone may not depart from the world, as others too might go with him. Instinct of self preservation is the foremost to be favourably responded. The concern of the appellants is therefore justified. (Para 16)
       (iii) Constitution of India-Articles 136 and 142-Scope-Appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 is plenary in nature-This Court can determine its own jurisdiction-Court has special residuary power to entertain appeal against any order of any Court in the country-1991(4) SCC 406; 1991(4) SCC 584 : Relied on. (Para 18)

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

The venue of trial involving Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao, the former Prime Minister, may be shifted from the Tis Hazari Court complex to another suitable location within New Delhi due to threat perceptions and security concerns (!) (!) .
The exemption from personal appearance granted to Shri Rao by the Supreme Court interim orders may continue until his presence is specifically required at the newly selected court venue (!) (!) .
The protective security provided by the Special Protection Group (SPG) cannot be lifted from Shri Rao even when he is in court custody or under other court-ordered custody; the security goes with the protectee as a continuous obligation (!) .
The expression "proximate security" should be given a purposive interpretation, encompassing visits to courts and other locations where the protectee needs to go, and it cannot be restricted to only certain designated places (!) .
The statutory provisions reflect a clear intention that security for protectees is comprehensive and continuous, and the obligation of the SPG does not diminish when the protectee is in transit or within court premises (!) .
The court has broad jurisdiction under constitutional provisions to review and decide on issues related to venue and security arrangements, ensuring that the safety of the protectee is balanced with the administration of justice (!) (!) .
Assistance from civil and local authorities can be requisitioned by the SPG under the law to aid in providing security, and such assistance should not obstruct court proceedings or hinder the administration of justice (!) (!) .
Timings and procedures for court proceedings should be organized in a manner that ensures both security and the smooth functioning of the judicial process, avoiding impractical demands such as early morning sessions (!) .
The order emphasizes that the security arrangements are based on a thorough threat assessment, including risks from militant groups, and that the safety of the protectee is a paramount concern justifying the venue change (!) (!) .
The decision to change the trial venue is made with the understanding that it is a necessary measure to safeguard the life and liberty of the protectee, consistent with constitutional rights and security obligations (!) .
The court's jurisdiction under constitutional law is plenary and includes the authority to review and modify security and venue arrangements to ensure both justice and protection (!) .
The process involves a collaborative approach where the High Court will select a suitable venue, and all concerned authorities are responsible for making the necessary arrangements for the trial (!) (!) .
The possibility of setting a precedent is considered unlikely, given the unique circumstances and the specific statutory protections applicable to former Prime Ministers and their immediate families (!) .
Overall, the legal framework and judicial approach prioritize the safety of protectees while maintaining the integrity and efficiency of judicial proceedings, with flexibility to adapt venue and procedural arrangements as necessary (!) (!) .

JUDGMENT

Punchhi, J.-The People of India, that is Bharat, gave to themselves a written Constitution effective from 26th January, 1950, ordaining in Article 74 that there shall be a council of ministers with the Prime Minister as the Head, to aid and advice the President. The importance of the office of the Prime Minister in a parliamentary democracy is well understood and needs no elaboration. In the course of time, on October 31, 1984, the People of India suffered assassination of their Prime Minister, Shrimati Indira Gandhi, during a period of great turmoil and tumult. Her son, Shri Rajiv Gandhi then stepped forward to serve the country as Prime Minister, when the cult of violence had begun and was expected to gain ground. During his tenure, need was felt to provide high security to the Prime Minister of India and the members of his immediate family, since there had been several threats to his life. A Bill which led to the passing of the Special Protection Group Act, 1988 (for short the Act ) was introduced in the Parliament by giving out the following :

"Statement of Objects and Reasons

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 provisions 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."

The Act came into force on June 2, 1988.

2. On December 2, 1989, Shri Rajiv Gandhi demitted the office of Prime Minister. On May 21, 1991, he was assassinated, whereafter need was felt to bring the former Prime Ministers of India and the immediate members of their families under the umbrella of the Act. Therefore a Bill passed by the Parliament brought forth the necessary amendment with effect from 25.9.1991, whereunder every former Prime Minister of India was brought at par with the existing Prime Minister of India 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 India, are conspiring to cause harm to the members of his immediate family. The threat perception emergi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1695

Cases Referred (2)