Delhi HC dismisses plea on withdrawal of security cover given to Raj Thackeray
Delhi High Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking withdrawal of security cover given to Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray, as the Centre said the state government was taking care of his security
New Delhi: Delhi High Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking withdrawal of security cover given to Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray, as the Centre said the state government was taking care of his security.
A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal said since the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has stated that they have nothing to do with Thackeray's security, "the question of withdrawal of his security raised by petitioner does not arise".
"In view of the statement made by the Ministry, we cannot entertain this writ petition," the bench said, adding that "it is not a public interest issue which requires interference by this court".
The court refused to hear the plea alleging that Thackeray is provided with 'Y' category security cover by the government which should be withdrawn as he was neither holding a constitutional post, nor was he a lawmaker.
It also refused to issue direction to the Centre to frame guidelines about security cover given to private persons who are "engaged in hate speech or have criminal cases" pending against them.
The bench further said the petitioner can avail other remedies available under the law, if he was not satisfied by the court's order.
The bench passed the order after the counsel for MHA, Saakshi Agrawal, submitted that the security to the MNS chief has been given by the state government and not by the central government.
The petitioner, Mithilesh Kumar Pandey, had alleged in his plea that persons who are involved in hate speeches and have the means to hire private security guards should not be given security cover by the government spending taxpayers' money and a guideline should be framed on the issue.
The plea had sought a direction to the Centre to frame guidelines while referring to the ratio of policemen and civilians in India.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh told Kumar's counsel that the former was accused of "heinous crime" and that he could be treated as a "super VIP patient".
The court said that in the present times, citizens cannot be prevented from exercising their rights because of a rigid interpretation of a law that calls for "personal presence".