1996 (10) TMI 488 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Proximate security for former Prime Ministers under the Special Protection Group Act, 1988.
2. Change of trial venue for Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao due to security concerns.
3. Interpretation of Sections 2(g) and 14 of the Special Protection Group Act.
4. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution.
5. Practical arrangements for court proceedings involving high-profile protectees.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Proximate Security for Former Prime Ministers:
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proximate security for former Prime Ministers and their immediate families, as mandated by the Special Protection Group Act, 1988 (the "Act"). The Act was enacted to provide high security to the Prime Minister and former Prime Ministers due to threats to their lives. The Act defines "proximate security" as protection from close quarters and includes various security measures during travel and at places of residence or functions. The court highlighted that the security provided under the Act is qualitatively superior to ordinary security and is a statutory obligation that cannot be waived or limited by circumstances such as court appearances.

2. Change of Trial Venue for Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao:
The petitioners sought to change the trial venue for Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao from Tis Hazari Court to another location due to security concerns. The court noted the detailed threat perception to Shri Rao, including potential threats from Sikh and Kashmiri militant groups and other extremist organizations. The Tis Hazari Court complex was described as unsuitable for providing the necessary security due to its layout, high footfall, and lack of access control. The court recognized the validity of these security concerns and the need to ensure the safety of the protectee during court appearances.

3. Interpretation of Sections 2(g) and 14 of the Special Protection Group Act:
The court addressed the interpretation of Sections 2(g) and 14 of the Act. Section 2(g) defines "proximate security," and Section 14 mandates that various authorities must assist the Special Protection Group (SPG) in fulfilling its duties. The Administrative Committee of the High Court had opined that these provisions did not apply to a protectee summoned as an accused in court. The Supreme Court rejected this view, stating that the Act's provisions are comprehensive and do not exclude court appearances from the scope of proximate security. The court emphasized that the SPG's obligation to provide security extends to all situations, including court appearances.

4. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution:
The petitioners invoked the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution to seek a change of venue for the trial. The court affirmed its plenary jurisdiction to entertain such matters and emphasized its supervisory role over all courts in India. The court cited previous judgments to support its authority to intervene in cases where the safety of individuals and the administration of justice are at stake.

5. Practical Arrangements for Court Proceedings Involving High-Profile Protectees:
The court considered various practical suggestions for conducting the trial of Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao. The Coordination Committee of Bar Associations suggested changing the timings of the trial, but the court found this impractical. The court directed the appellants to submit a list of suitable venues for the trial to the High Court and suggested avoiding the Patiala House Court complex due to similar security concerns. The court also extended the exemption from personal appearance for Shri Rao until the new venue was selected and necessary arrangements were made.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the Administrative Committee's decision and directing the High Court to reconsider the trial venue for Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao. The court emphasized the statutory obligation to provide proximate security to former Prime Ministers and the necessity of ensuring their safety during court proceedings. The judgment underscores the importance of interpreting the Act purposively to fulfill its protective intent and the Supreme Court's role in safeguarding constitutional rights and the administration of justice.