The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the State Government to inform it of the number of persons not presently holding public office who have been provided security cover by the State (Bir Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others)..The direction was issued while hearings a plea moved by former Member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly, Bir Devinder Singh. Singh has challenged the State Government's decision to withdraw his security cover..Questioning the State's declared policy of not providing security cover to former MLAs, the petitioner presented a rejoinder with details of certain other former MLAs who continue to enjoy security cover..Accepting a sealed cover report from the counsel for the State containing a status report, Justice Jaishree Thakur allowed the State to file a counter to the petitioner's rejoinder.."At least in my Court, there will never be a question of anything being done in sealed cover", Justice Gautam Patel of Bombay HC.While doing so, Justice Thakur also directed the State to present a list of persons not holding a public office for whom the State was providing a security cover. The order reads,."... let this Court also be informed about the number of persons, who have been provided security beyond the State Security Policy 2013 along with list of those persons, who have been allowed security but are not holding any public office (other than any security provided to the Judicial Officers).".Advocate RS Bains represented the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Rameeza Hakim appeared for the State..The matter is expected to be taken up next on September 27, 2020..Read the Order here:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the State Government to inform it of the number of persons not presently holding public office who have been provided security cover by the State (Bir Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others)..The direction was issued while hearings a plea moved by former Member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly, Bir Devinder Singh. Singh has challenged the State Government's decision to withdraw his security cover..Questioning the State's declared policy of not providing security cover to former MLAs, the petitioner presented a rejoinder with details of certain other former MLAs who continue to enjoy security cover..Accepting a sealed cover report from the counsel for the State containing a status report, Justice Jaishree Thakur allowed the State to file a counter to the petitioner's rejoinder.."At least in my Court, there will never be a question of anything being done in sealed cover", Justice Gautam Patel of Bombay HC.While doing so, Justice Thakur also directed the State to present a list of persons not holding a public office for whom the State was providing a security cover. The order reads,."... let this Court also be informed about the number of persons, who have been provided security beyond the State Security Policy 2013 along with list of those persons, who have been allowed security but are not holding any public office (other than any security provided to the Judicial Officers).".Advocate RS Bains represented the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Rameeza Hakim appeared for the State..The matter is expected to be taken up next on September 27, 2020..Read the Order here: