VIP security flaunted as status symbol: Govt to HC

With too many “VIPs” hankering after pomp and display in the name of security, the Union Home Ministry seems to have hit upon a unique solution...

With too many “VIPs” hankering after pomp and display in the name of security, the Union Home Ministry seems to have hit upon a unique solution — merely change the term “VIP Security” to “Personal Security”.

A detailed affidavit filed by Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, A K Srivastava in the Delhi High Court reveals demands by “protected persons” for “special privileges” mainly to flaunt it as a “status symbol”.

“The term ‘VIP security’ has been replaced with the term ‘personal security,’ since it was observed that a number of protected persons interpreted security as a status symbol and therefore wanted special privileges,” says an affidavit filed in the High Court last year. The affidavit was referred to recently in the hearing before a Division Bench headed by Justice Thakur on a PIL regarding protocols, checks and measures for security provided to VIPs. The case has been posted to July 22 for further hearing.

Story continues below this ad

The Ministry goes on to say that “in order to clarify that provision of security had nothing to do with social status and should not be used as a ground for securing privileges or preferences, the nomenclature ‘VIP security’ was changed to ‘Personal Security’.”

The document pooh-poohs threats anticipated from “professional rivals” and clarifies that security at “government cost” becomes necessary when threat emanates from militants/terrorist groups or the organised mafia, provided that the protected person had no role in such activities.

“The assessment of threat to individuals can only be made by professional security experts of the Government, who recommend the level of security,” says the affidavit, which also underlines that a system for periodic review of the allotted security was in place.

“Two committees – one under the Special Secretary/Additional Secretary and the other under the Union Home Secretary with security experts as members carry out the review of security of protected persons every six months. The decision to withdraw/reduce the security arrangements is taken by these committees,” it noted.

Story continues below this ad

Justice Thakur, in the previous hearing of the PIL, criticised “the so-called VIPs” for the “obnoxious” behaviour of their securitymen towards the public when they visit crowded places in the city.

On the defensive, the Ministry had placed on record a list of VIPs provided Z plus category security in Delhi and noted that it had already drafted a revised policy for security to individuals.