हाईकोर्ट ने सरकार से पूछा कि ऐसे कितने लोगों को सुरक्षा दी है, जिन पर आपराधिक मुकदमे दर्ज हैं..? (VIP Security)
VIP Security, A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and senior justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari of the Uttarakhand High Court has requested the state government to provide comprehensive information regarding individuals with pending criminal cases who have been granted security. The court has set a deadline of the second week of July to submit the required details. The request was made during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed on behalf of Khanpur MLA Umesh Kumar, seeking Y-plus security.
The PIL, filed by Haridwar resident Bhagat Singh, contends that MLAs are provided security guards under the pretext of safety measures. Additional security personnel are assigned if an MLA faces any potential threats. However, in Umesh Kumar’s case, it is alleged that the standard procedure, which involves the submission of a report by the local intelligence unit (LIU) to the police department, was not followed. The MLA was reportedly granted Y-plus security solely based on his application, despite having personal security and no apparent life-threatening risks.
The petitioner highlights the LIU’s report, which states that Umesh Kumar faces no threat to his life, and asserts that his Y-plus security should be revoked. Furthermore, the PIL questions the rationale behind providing police protection to individuals who are not in danger from anyone, emphasizing that such practices amount to the misuse of police resources. The primary responsibility of the police, as per the petitioner, is to safeguard the general public.
It is worth noting that the High Court has previously emphasized, in one of its orders, that the police’s duty is to protect individuals facing genuine threats to life and property, and security should only be granted after a thorough investigation.”
Focus Keywords: Uttarakhand High Court, government, security allocation, criminal cases, PIL, Khanpur MLA, Umesh Kumar, local intelligence unit, Y-plus security, police protection, public safety.
SEO-friendly Keywords: High Court orders government information, pending criminal cases, security granted against criminal charges, PIL for MLA security, local intelligence unit report, misuse of police resources, genuine threat assessment, police responsibility, public safety measures.
नवीन समाचार, नैनीताल, 16 जून 2023। उत्तराखंड उच्च न्यायालय की मुख्य न्यायाधीश विपिन सांघी और वरिष्ठ न्यायमूर्ति मनोज कुमार तिवारी की खंडपीठ ने राज्य सरकार से जुलाई महीने के दूसरे हफ्ते तक ऐसे लोगों (VIP Security) के बारे में पूरी सूचना मांगी है, जिनके खिलाफ आपराधिक मुकदमे दर्ज हैं। खंडपीठ ने यह जानकारी खानपुर के विधायक उमेश कुमार को वाई प्लस सुरक्षा दिए जाने को लेकर दायर जनहित याचिका पर सुनवाई के दौरान मांगी है।
VIP Security
मामले के अनुसार हरिद्वार निवासी भगत सिंह ने नैनीताल उच्च न्यायालय में एक जनहित याचिका दायर कर कहा है कि विधायकों को सुरक्षा के नाम पर एक सुरक्षाकर्मी दिया जाता है। यदि किसी विधायक को खतरा होता है तो उन्हें एक अतिरिक्त सुरक्षाकर्मी दिया जाता है।
किसी विधायक को सुरक्षा देने से पहले स्थानीय खुफिया इकाई-एलआईयू की ओर से पुलिस विभाग को रिपोर्ट दी जाती है। जबकि विधायक उमेश कुमार के मामले में प्रक्रिया का पालन नहीं किया गया है। कहा है कि उमेश कुमार को उनके प्रार्थना पत्र के आधार पर वाई प्लस सुरक्षा प्रदान की गई है। जबकि उनके पास अपनी व्यक्तिगत सुरक्षा भी है, और उनके जीवन को कोई खतरा नहीं है।
याचिकाकर्ता का कहना था कि स्थानीय खुफिया इकाई ने अपनी रिपोर्ट में कहा है कि उनके जीवन को कोई खतरा नहीं है। इसलिए उनकी वाई प्लस सुरक्षा हटाई जाए। ऐसे ही कितने लोगों की सुरक्षा में पुलिस लगी है। जबकि, उनको किसी से कोई खतरा नहीं है। यह पुलिस का दुरुपयोग है। जबकि, पुलिस का काम जनता की सुरक्षा करना है।
उल्लेखनीय है कि इससे पहले भी उच्च न्यायालय ने अपने एक आदेश में कहा था कि पुलिस का कार्य जनता की सुरक्षा करना है। जिन लोगों को जानमाल का खतरा है, जांच करने के बाद ही उन्हें सुरक्षा दी जाए। (डॉ. नवीन जोशी) आज के अन्य एवं अधिक पढ़े जा रहे ‘नवीन समाचार’ पढ़ने के लिए यहां क्लिक करें।
यदि आपको लगता है कि ‘नवीन समाचार’ अच्छा कार्य कर रहा है तो हमें सहयोग करें..
English Version
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and senior justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari of the Uttarakhand High Court has requested the state government to provide comprehensive information regarding individuals with pending criminal cases who have been granted security. The court has set a deadline of the second week of July to submit the required details. The request was made during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed on behalf of Khanpur MLA Umesh Kumar, seeking Y-plus security.
The PIL, filed by Haridwar resident Bhagat Singh, contends that MLAs are provided security guards under the pretext of safety measures. Additional security personnel are assigned if an MLA faces any potential threats. However, in Umesh Kumar’s case, it is alleged that the standard procedure, which involves the submission of a report by the local intelligence unit (LIU) to the police department, was not followed. The MLA was reportedly granted Y-plus security solely based on his application, despite having personal security and no apparent life-threatening risks.
The petitioner highlights the LIU’s report, which states that Umesh Kumar faces no threat to his life, and asserts that his Y-plus security should be revoked. Furthermore, the PIL questions the rationale behind providing police protection to individuals who are not in danger from anyone, emphasizing that such practices amount to the misuse of police resources. The primary responsibility of the police, as per the petitioner, is to safeguard the general public.
It is worth noting that the High Court has previously emphasized, in one of its orders, that the police’s duty is to protect individuals facing genuine threats to life and property, and security should only be granted after a thorough investigation.”
Focus Keywords: Uttarakhand High Court, government, security allocation, criminal cases, PIL, Khanpur MLA, Umesh Kumar, local intelligence unit, Y-plus security, police protection, public safety.
SEO-friendly Keywords: High Court orders government information, pending criminal cases, security granted against criminal charges, PIL for MLA security, local intelligence unit report, misuse of police resources, genuine threat assessment, police responsibility, public safety measures.
