Bombay High Court
Nitin Shankar Deshpande And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 8 August, 2013
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Mohit S. Shah, M.S. Sanklecha
upa PIL-69-2013.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.69 OF 2013
Nitin Shankar Deshpande and another ).. Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others ).. Respondents
Mr. Ashish Mehta a/w Mr.Prateek V. Rachh i/b.Ashish
Mehta for the Petitioners.
Mr.Kevic Setalvad, Additional Solicitor General, with Mr.Jay
Bhatia for Respondent No.1.
Mr.R.A. Dada, Senior Advocate, a/w Dr.Milind Sathe, Senior
Advocate, Mr.Rishit Badiani, and Ms.M.R. Dada i/b M/s.A.S.
Dayal & Associates for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. &
M.S. SANKLECHA, J.
DATED : 8 AUGUST 2013
ORAL ORDER (Per Chief Justice)
This petition purports to be Public Interest Litigation. The petitioners, two in number, have prayed for a direction to quash and set aside the impugned decision of respondent no.1 Union of India to provide security cover of Central Reserve Police Force to respondent no.2. Mr.Mukesh Ambani.
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:16:31 :::
upa PIL-69-2013.sxw
2. The petitioners have relied upon several newspaper reports indicating that the Government of India in the Home Ministry has approved an armed squad of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) commandos for security of respondent no.2 after he received threats from certain terrorist organizations including threats of attack at his residence in Mumbai. The petitioners do not dispute the threat perception but the only ground of challenge to the impugned decision of the Government of India is that the decision is not supported by any statutory provisions. It is submitted that the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), provides for constitution and regulation of armed Central Reserve Police Force for restoration and maintenance of law and order in any part of Indian Union and that the CRPF cannot be employed for giving protection to any individual.
3. In response to the query from the Court whether the issue raised in this petition is subject of any matter pending before the Supreme Court, learned Counsel for the petitioners states that there is no such proceeding pending before the Supreme Court regarding the subject matter of this petition.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to the provisions of the Act and particularly Section2(a) and Section 7 of the Act and Rule 25 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules").
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:16:31 :::
upa PIL-69-2013.sxw
Section 2(a) of the Act reads as under :
"(a) "active duty" means the duty to restore and preserve order
in any local area in the event of any disturbance therein;"
Section 7 of the Act reads as under :
"7. General duties of members of the Force.- (1) It shall be the duty of every member of the Force promptly to obey and to execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued to him by any competent authority, to detect and bring offenders to justice and to apprehend all persons whom he is legally authorised to apprehend and for whose apprehension sufficient grounds exist.
(2) Every member of the Force shall be liable to serve without and beyond, as well as within the territory of India."
Rule 25(a) reads as under :-
"25.Primary Duties of the Force.- (a) Members of the Force may be employed in any part of Indian Union for the restoration and maintenance of law and order, and for any other purpose as directed by the Central Government."
It is submitted on the basis of the aforesaid provisions that since the primary duty of CRPF is to detect and bring offenders to justice along with restoration and maintenance of law and order, the Force cannot be deployed for providing security cover to a private individual.
5. On the other hand, Mr.Kevic Setalwad, learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Rafiq Dada, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.2, have submitted that the words "maintenance of law and order" are wide enough to include the power of the Central Government to provide CRPF for security 3 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:16:31 ::: upa PIL-69-2013.sxw cover to any individual, whether official or private. It is submitted in the alternative, that in any view of the matter, the words "for any other purpose as directed by the Central Government" under Rule 25 are also broad enough to include such power of the Central Government.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits in rejoinder that the words "for any other purpose" have to be read ejusdem generis and, therefore, they would not include the power to provide security to a private individual.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that for dealing with the threat perception entertained by respondent no.2, it is open to respondent no.2 to approach the State Government and the State Government may provide police protection.
7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that this petition is not required to be entertained. The petitioner himself has adverted to the fact that the respondent nos.1 and 2 has received threats from terrorist organizations. How serious are those threat perceptions and how they are to be tackled for the purpose of providing security cover to an individual, are all within the domain of executive function. It was as far back as in 1955 that the Supreme Court in Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and others vs The State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 549, held that neither 4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:16:31 ::: upa PIL-69-2013.sxw Articles 73 and 162 contain any definition as to what the executive function is and what activities would legitimately come within its scope. It is not only when the Parliament or the State Legislature has legislated on certain items appertaining in their respective lists, that the Union or the State executives, as the case may be, can proceed to function in respect to them. The powers of the Central executive and the State executive are not confined to matters over which legislation has already been made.
The Supreme Court has thus in terms held that the executive power of the Central Government is co-extensive with the legislative power of the Parliament and that the Central executive does not have to wait for any law to be made by Parliament before taking any action in particular field. Of course, the executive Government can never go against the provisions of the Constitution or of any statutory law. But from this, it does not follow that in order to enable the executive to function, there must be a law already in existence and that the powers of executive are merely for the carryout of of these laws. It is open to the executive to carry out all functions which are incidental and supplemental to carrying out the functions which the legislature has mandated it to carry out.
8. In the present case, what Section 7 provides is the general duties of CRPF, that it shall be the duty of every member of the Force promptly to obey and execute all orders and warrants 5 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:16:31 ::: upa PIL-69-2013.sxw lawfully issued to him by any competent authority, to detect and bring offenders to justice and to apprehend all persons whom he is legally authorized to apprehend and for whose apprehension sufficient grounds exist. This duty of CRPF personnel to detect and bring offenders to book does not mean that the Central Government is prohibited from deploying CRPF to prevent commission of a crime. The words "restoration and maintenance of law and order" by themselves also do not exclude the power of the Central Government to deploy CRPF for protection of an individual. Even if any doubt were to be entertained about the scope of these words, Rule 25(a) of the Rules specifically provides that members of the Force may be employed in any part of Indian Union for the restoration and maintenance of law and order and for any other purpose as directed by the Central Government. These words "for any other purpose as directed by the Central Government" are also wide enough to include the power of the Central Government to deploy CRPF for protection of an individual.
9. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the words "for any other purpose" should be read ejusdem generis. In fact, the words "restoration and maintenance of law and order" are wide enough to exhaust the entire category/class of activities required for maintenance of peace. Therefore, the words "for any other purpose"
cannot be given a restricted meaning and would cover purposes 6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:16:31 ::: upa PIL-69-2013.sxw other than maintenance of law and order. As already indicated above, there is nothing in the provisions of the Act or the Rules to take away the executive power of the Central Government to deploy CRPF force for providing security cover to a private individual. In any case, even if one were to read the words "for any other purposes" ejusdem generis to the preceding words "maintenance of law and order", the protection of an individual would be covered by the words "maintenance of law and order" as the two are compatiable. Therefore, even on application of principle of ejusdem generis also the action of respondent no.1 in providing security cover to respondent no.2 would fall within the expression "for any other purpose".
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that if such security cover is provided to respondent no.2, there may be many other industrialists or celebrities who may come forward to seek such protection and that, therefore, this Court should strike down the decision, otherwise all the forces will be deployed for protection of private individuals endangering the security of other citizens.
11. As observed by the Allahabad High Court in Ramvir Upadhyay vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2004 Indlaw ALL 110 (W.P. No.5822 of 2003), Courts have no parameters or standards to gauge the security measures required for a particular person. This is particularly so as the matter for providing security 7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:16:31 ::: upa PIL-69-2013.sxw depends upon various reports of various authorities and it is for the authorities at the appropriate level to scrutinize the necessity demand for grant or continuance of security cover. In the same judgment, it is also recognized that in genuine and deserving cases, the State is bound to provide security cover not only to Ministers, ex-Ministers, bureaucrats, but also to private citizens who have fundamental right to life which includes right of protection of his life.
12. Having considered all the relevant aspects, we do not find any merit in this petition. Petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE M.S. SANKLECHA, J.
8 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2013 21:16:31 :::