PM security breach: SC forms new probe panel, questions Centre on notices to Punjab officers

Indicating that the composition of the committee will be similar to the one it constituted on January 7 to secure the records of the PM’s visit, Chief Justice of India N V Ramana, heading a bench also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, said: “We are thinking on these lines. One retired Supreme Court judge will head the committee.”

Hearing a plea by Delhi-based Lawyers Voice, the bench on January 7 had asked the Registrar General, Punjab and Haryana High Court, to “forthwith seize and secure the records” of the visit. The Registrar General was to be assisted by the Director General of Police, Union Territory of Chandigarh, and an officer of the National Investigation Agency (NIA), not below the rank of Inspector General, nominated by the NIA Director General.

These officers apart, the new committee, the bench indicated, would include another member, most likely the Punjab Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence).

Earlier, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, urged the bench to allow the Centre’s committee to continue with its inquiry and place a report before the court. But this was opposed by Punjab Advocate General D S Patwalia who said the state had “no hope” in the Centre’s committee and urged the court to constitute an “independent committee”.

Mehta said since there is concern that the show-cause notices seek to pre-empt the outcome, the Centre can assure it will not take any action regarding the notices till its committee examines the issue and places a report before the court.

But the bench then came up with the suggestion of a committee under one of its former judges.

The bench initially wondered if the IG (Intelligence) of Punjab could be part of the committee, but Mehta said the IG “may also be the subject matter of scrutiny as he too is responsible for the security as per the security Blue Book”.

Responding to a query from the bench, Patwalia said the ADGP (Intelligence) may be included.

The bench said it will pass a detailed order.

It asked the Centre and Punjab to put on hold inquiries by the committees they had constituted.

It questioned the Centre on the show-cause notices issued to the Punjab Chief Secretary and DGP.

Justice Kohli said the “impression you are giving is that you have already made up your mind… then what’s the point of coming to this court?”.

Mehta said it was not he but the petitioner who had approached the court.

Justice Surya Kant told the Solicitor General “your show-cause notice is totally self-contradictory. By constituting a committee, you seek to inquire if there was a breach and then you hold the state CS and DG guilty. Who heard them? … Some impartial agency will have to go into who is responsible”.

Justice Kohli said that after the court had directed seizure of records, “asking them to reply in 24 hours… is not expected of you”.

Mehta said “not expected of you is a little harsh” and “this (show-cause notice) was before the court ordered seizure (of records)”.

At the outset, Patwalia informed the bench that as per its directions, the HC Registrar General had taken control of the records of the PM’s travel.

He referred to remarks made on January 7 against the chairman of the state-appointed committee by Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, who appeared for the petitioner, and said “a very unfortunate incident happened… Mr Maninder Singh had raised some objections… We went through the judgment. There is nothing against him” — Patwalia did not mention the name of the judge he was referring to.

On January 7, Maninder Singh had said the name of the chairman of the committee appointed by Punjab had been the subject matter of a judgement of the Supreme Court in 2011. He said the Supreme Court had made adverse remarks on the conduct of the judge and, therefore, his appointment to the committee now raised suspicions on the bona fides of the inquiry. Singh did not name the judge or elaborate on the case.

The reference, however, appeared to be to a 2011 judgement of the Supreme Court which quashed an order by a Punjab and Haryana High Court bench directing a CBI probe against former IPS officer Sumedh Singh Saini in an alleged fake encounter case.

The HC bench included Justice Mehtab Singh Gill (now head of the Punjab committee) but the Supreme Court, in its then order, did not name the judge and mentioned only ‘Mr Justice X’ while stating that “the order impugned (of the HC) has rightly been challenged to be a nullity at least on three grounds” including “judicial bias” and the “entire judicial process appears to have been drowned to achieve a motivated result which we are unable to approve of”.

Pointing out that Punjab officers had been issued notices by the Centre on why action should not be taken against them, Patwalia said there was nothing against the Chief Secretary and “I (Chief Secretary) don’t think I will get any fair hearing… There is some politics”.

“When proceedings are deferred, where is the question of disciplinary action,” he said, urging the bench to appoint an “independent” committee.

Intervening, the CJI asked Mehta if the notice was issued before or after the court’s January 7 order. “Before,” the Solicitor General said. He said one look at the SPG Act and the Blue Book on VVIP security would make it clear why the show-cause notices were needed.

He said the foundation of the notice is that the DGP is responsible since the rules say so. “The committee will go into individual details, whether the route is protected… We cannot leave it to the state government.”

Mehta said the Centre’s committee could go into details and place it before the court. The CJI asked him “then what remains of the inquiry by the court?”.

Mehta said “this is a matter of the security of the PM”. At this, the CJI said “please don’t be under the impression that we have not taken it seriously”.