The Supreme Court in an open reference to Mukesh Ambani's Z security cover sought an explanation on why tighter security was provided to rich individuals at the cost of compromising protection of commoners.
The bench comprising of Justices G S Singhvi and Kurian Joseph asked, "We read from newspaper reports about the home ministry agreeing to provide CISF security to an individual. Why do such persons, who can afford to pay for security, not hire private security guards."
"It is public exchequer. What about the security of the common man? Every day we hear news that a minor is raped. A five-year-old would not have been raped if there was proper security in the Capital."
The bench also targeted VIP protection to individuals facing criminal charges, "The governments have provided security to a lot of private individuals who face criminal cases, including murder and rape charges. We are making it clear that the home ministry has to take a call on this soon. The state is not obliged to provide security to persons facing criminal charges except for documentary proof of specific threat to his life," stated the judges.
"Please provide security to all so that five- or six-year-olds do not get sexually assaulted. We are concerned by the situation where so much of security is given to many who do not deserve it while there is no security for the common man."
Harish Salve acting as Amicus Curiae revealed to the court the inconvenience VIP cordons cause during their visit to the capital as well the misuse of the security in instances when extended to the relatives of political honchos.
The bench has asked the state governments to furnish it with the list of private individuals and those with criminal background seeking VIP protection.
The next hearing of the bench is scheduled on 9 July.
