Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The matter was heard earlier and it would reflect that the security cover of the petitioner was withdrawn allegedly on 18 th May, 2021 whereas he has continuing perception of threat to his life. Although the petitioner enjoys Z category security from the Central Government to ward off any threat perception to the life of the petitioner yet, the petitioner has sought for security arrangement from the State Government in three areas namely Pilot Car, Route Lining and Monitoring the places where public meetings may be held. The order dated 24.06.2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court speaks of that the petitioner has been given adequate security arrangement commensurate to his status as the Leader of the Opposition and given few instances of security personnel both of proximate and peripheral nature presently in charge of the petitioner's security. Accordingly, learned Advocate General, Mr. Kishore Dutta has denied categorically the allegation so made on behalf of the petitioner as the petitioner has not been deprived of his security cover. This Court by the order dated 30.06.2021 sought for exhaustive report from the State/respondents and the report has been placed on record.

In view of such report, it cannot be said that without any rhyme or reason all on a sudden the security personnel were withdrawn. It was redeployed only on the basis of Joint Security Review between the officer of CRPF and the State Police authority together with Intelligence Bureau. The threat of security as such, there is no reason for the petitioner to apprehend about the security because being the Leader of Opposition holding the rank of Cabinet Minister, there is no denial to provide him security. It is the contention that since Z category security has been already made similar security by the State respondent may not be needed in view of Joint Security Review.

Now my attention is drawn to the averment made in paragraph 39 of the writ petition by the learned Advocate General which offers that petitioner is not seeking direction from the State respondent for providing armed security personnel/bodyguards/PSOs as the petitioner is receiving Central Security cover- category Z but the direction has been sought for upon the respondent authority for ensuring that there is adequate security arrangement not at the venue of his meeting but also route lining security arrangement to be ensured for ensuring the safety and security of the petitioner during ingress and egress to such avenue.

Mr. Soumya Majumder, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to various documents annexed to the writ application and points out that State security is suddenly withdrawn by the State Government. This Court finds that arrangement regarding security cover to the petitioner is well noted in the report of the Directorate of Security. My attention is invited to order earlier passed on 23.03.2007 by Hon'ble Justice Dipankar Datta in W.P.4191 (W) of 2007 which reflects observation that it shall be the duty of the local police officer to offer such protection to the petitioner as was warranted in the circumstances according to law as the petitioner was apprehending threat on his life and liberty. I have observed that there is no denial by the learned Advocate General in the matter of security arrangement in favour of the petitioner and his entitlement as the Leader of Opposition in the Assembly holding rank of a Cabinet Minister. The report as sought for in terms of the prayer of the petitioner in crystal terms speaks of arrangement is being made for his security even while on visit to different places and security vigil is always there. For the reasons stated above and for the reasons, I find that the petitioner is provided with Z category security arrangement is well-maintained according to the scale of Z category protectee as per the "Yellow Book" by the Government of West Bengal in terms of the report of the Director Security, Government of West Bengal. However, the State/respondents as per the report would continue to keep security cover and vigilance on the movement of the petitioner so that the petitioner is provided full security in the hour of need.