Skip to main content

Nobody can demand security as matter of right: SC

Emphasising that appraisal of threat perception was not its business, the Supreme Court Monday said no person can ask for security from the State as a matter of his right and that it was "primarily" for the police authorities to decide on its necessity.

"Nobody has a fundamental right to security...nobody can demand it as a matter of right. Nobody is entitled to security at state expenditure. We are not going to regulate grant of security to people. There is a competent authority to examine security threat perception," said a Bench of Justices T S Thakur and Vikramjit Sen.

The Bench said there were authorities to decide on who should be provided the security and if there was a miss, they will be answerable to the court. "This (security) cannot become a permanent feature. Nobody is entitled to it as a matter of right. It is based on threat perception, which is to be examined by the concerned agency. We are not here for examining threat perception," pointed out the Bench.

This Bench's view is different from the course taken by another SC Bench, which has called from all states details of persons, who have been provided VIP security and the criteria of providing it.

The court's observations Monday came as it heard an application by the Delhi Police to withdraw security cover for advocate Ajay Aggarwal. The apex court had in 2003 ordered the Police Commissioner to provide security to Aggarwal, who was a petitioner in the Taj Corridor scam case, in view of threats to him and his family members.

Additional Solicitor General Rakesh Khanna, appearing for the police, submitted that the threat perception had been reviewed and it was noted that Aggarwal and his family did not need security cover anymore. He said the security could not be withdrawn due to the SC order.

 Article referred:http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Nobody-can-demand-security-as-matter-of-right--SC/1199509/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more