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

1. 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 (!) (!) .

2. 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 (!) (!) .

3. 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 (!) .

4. 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 (!) .

5. 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 (!) .

6. 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 (!) (!) .

7. 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 (!) (!) .

8. 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 (!) .

9. 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 (!) (!) .

10. 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 (!) .

11. 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 (!) .

12. 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 (!) (!) .

13. 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 (!) .

14. 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 (!) (!) .