Do you know, that Business Tycoon Mukesh Ambani was granted Z+ security since 2013, the highest safety protocol in India? Recently, Tripura High Court passed an interim order, directing an officer from the Ministry of Home Affairs to bring files maintained regarding the assessment of threat perception in relation to Mukesh Ambani, his wife and children on the basis of which security has been granted to them. The said order has now been stayed by SC when the order was challenged.
Interestingly, it’s not the first time a controversy stirred against security given to Ambani. In 2020, a petition was filed in Supreme Court to seek withdrawal of Z+ security granted to the Ambani brothers and their family on the ground that they are capable enough to arrange security instead of providing it from the funds of the State, the petition challenged the PIL dismissed by High Court of Bombay regarding the same issue, which met the same fate in SC.
It is undeniable that a lot of people because of their official positions or them being affluent figures are often on the receiving end of threats and their safety is always at stake, thus it becomes vital to provide them with security, however, a concerning issue which always subsists is information related to it being made absolute confidential and because such security expenses are borne out of taxpayer’s money, there is a legitimate concern about the right to know how and when their money is dispersed.
In this article, we will discern the Security categories in India, who accord it & how it is determined & issues surrounding the procedure.
Types of security
Depending on the office of the person and the magnitude of threats, security is assigned in India, security is divided into six tiers.
1. Special Protection Group (SPG) – After Indira’s Gandhi assassination, a committee was formed to evaluate and suggest recommendations regarding Prime Ministerial’s office. In 1988, The Special Protection Group Act was passed to constitute a body to provide imminent safety to the Prime Minister. The Act mentions providing safety to the Prime Minister and his immediate family and to the former Prime Minister and immediate family for a period of one year and further one year depending on the level of threats as perceived by the Central Government. At present, only the Prime Minister is accorded the safety of SPG. SPG was allocated a budget of 385.95 Crores in the 2022 Budget.
2. Z+ Security – It is the highest safety accorded to protectees. Under this category, a person seeking protection gets 55 security details comprising Personnel of Railway Protection Force (RPF), Indo Tibetan Police Border Police (ITBP), 10 commandos of National Security Guards along with Local Police’s assistance. Union Home Minister Amit Shah, and President of Indian National Congress Sonia Gandhi are accorded Z+ security. Recently, a day after she was nominated as Presidential candidate, Droupadi Murmu was accorded Z+ security.
3. Z Security- Involves 22 Personnel Security including 2-8 Armed guards and two Personal Security Officers. Yashwant Sinha who is the opposition’s Presidential candidate is also accorded with Z category security.
4. Y+ Security- Under this security, five personnel- a CRPF commander and four constables are stationed at the house of a person seeking protection. Along with it, six personal security officers are deployed on a rotational basis. Bollywood Actress Kangana Ranaut received Y+ security last year.
5. Y Security- In this case, 11 personnel are sent, out of which 5 are permanently stationed and 3 are deployed on a rotation basis. Filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri was provided with Y security by the Centre after the release of Kashmir Files.
6. X Security- This is the lowest level of security with two armed personnel.
Bodies of Armed Forces
Special Training courses for Police forces are conducted in training institutions of the National Security Guard (NSG), Border Security Force (BSF), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to equip them for such security duties. Thus, they are mandated to provide security cover.
Other than State Police, protectees are also given protection from the Centre Armed Police Force.
Who accords the security?
Law and order fall in the category of State subjects, thus primarily, the State government is responsible for providing security to the person under whose jurisdiction the person falls. However, the Centre government is also empowered to provide security.
How is the security accorded?
Security arrangements for the President of India, Vice President of India and Prime Minister of India are made in accordance with the guidelines contained in their respective Blue Books issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the SPG Act.
Security arrangements for other political personalities are made as per the guidelines laid down in the Yellow Book titled “Security arrangement for the protection of individuals”. The security arrangements for such individuals are made after careful assessment of their threat perception emanating from terrorists /militant/fundamentalist outfits and organized criminal gangs. The degree of threat varies from individual to individual, depending on factors, such as nature of activities, status, likely gains for the terrorists, etc. Accordingly, categorised security cover (Z+, Z, Y+, Y & X) is provided to them on the basis of the gravity of the threat.
Assessment is done by the Intelligence Agency. It is based on information provided by Intelligence agencies- Intelligence Bureau, Research and Analysis Wing at Centre Level. In the case of the State government, input is provided by their respective Intelligence Agencies.
The level of security in the case of the Centre is determined by the Ministry of Home Affairs and in the case of the state, it is decided by the State government.
As threat assessment is dynamic in nature, it is subjected to periodic review and based on such assessment; security can be upgraded, downgraded, withdrawn or continued.
Thus, essentially there are two criteria –
1. By virtue of Office - who are entitled to security because of their positions.
2. Individuals subjected to threat & gravity of the threat.
As per Yellow Book, a protectee can have a security component from either Centre or from State, but not from both-except that liaising component as per scale has to be provided by the local unit.
In a matter related to assessment of security, Andhra Pradesh HC observed that "threat to one's life may be temporary and in such a case continuous security may not be needed. Therefore, whenever personal security is provided to a person, it must be constantly reviewed by the concerned Superintendent of Police and when on the basis of information available to him he genuinely feels that the threat has vanished, he may recall the security"
Security and threat perception co-exist, security is reduced based on a lack of threat perception.
A question was raised in Parliament in 2015 regarding the criteria for providing security to persons of political and judicial fields and the category of persons of both fields for whom there is a provision for providing security guard, to which the Ministry of Home Affairs gave a reply stating that the security so provided is periodically reviewed by Committee specially constituted for this purpose. The protectees falling under Z+, Z, Y+ and Y categories are entitled for getting the deployment of the Static Armed Guard at their residence.
Who incurs the expenses and is the information accessible to the public?
The expenses are borne by the State and Central governments, depending on who is providing the security services respectively.
While dealing with a petition regarding withdrawal of security from Ambani, the Supreme Court raised the following question- “If any citizen perceives a threat and is willing to cover the expenses of it, should the State provide it?. We don't want to approve that the State should cover expenses for private individuals if he/she has the capacity to pay for it.”
An RTI application dated 5.07.2014 seeking information regarding the cost incurred in providing Z+ security to Amit Shah was denied stating it was difficult to ascertain the exact amount since the expenses are accounted for under respective budget heads of different security agencies and data in this regard is neither compiled nor available centrally.
Lack of transparency
While we are aware that security is accorded after threat assessment and perception of threat, there is no clarity pertaining to what would amount to a situation where the magnitude of threat is grave enough to seek protection.
An RTI filed in 2018 sought questions regarding the number of people accorded security, the number of security guards provided under each cover, names of the protectees. In the reply, it was stated that security cover is given based on assessment, and categorised security is provided, in accordance with Yellow Book, which cannot be disclosed. Further, details regarding the names of the protectees and other security provisions are exempted from disclosure under 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
In 2021, The Ministry of Home Affairs was asked via a written request about details of Z+ security, to which the Ministry replied that details cannot be revealed because of security reasons.
Albeit disclosing of security details of the protectees would prove counterproductive, however, one cannot evade the fact that because the agencies responsible for according security are not accountable, often they act arbitrarily.
A protectee who was an ex-minister made a remark that he could not understand how the perception of threat has been diminished after the ruling party changed.
Supreme Court in Ramveer Upadhyay vs. R.M. Srivastava and others, 2013 observed that-“… in our experience, we have hardly seen any security of 'Z' or 'Y' category provided to any ordinary citizen; however, grave the threat perception or imminent danger may be to the person concerned. The petitioner, however, has claimed it obviously as a 'privileged class' by virtue of being an ex-minister which at times, may be justified even to an ex-minister…”
Conclusion
In 2013, the Delhi Police had submitted before the Supreme Court that it had deployed 8,049 police personnel for VIP security whereas only 3,448 personnel were deployed for crime prevention and investigation in the whole city. Patna high court made a remark about VIP security, “It’s a matter of concern as to how the state manages to maintain law and order amid these challenges, that a large number of security guards are being deployed for the protection of VIPs.”
These data are glaring and speak volumes about the harsh reality where the safety of an individual is put on a pedestal over the public’s safety.
An ideal solution would be to legislate on security coverage and lay down a standard procedure which stipulates- security categorisation, enumerates specifically individuals entitled to security by virtue of their office, when an individual can apply for security coverage and who will take care of expenses. Furthermore, there are already guards who are trained specifically for providing security. These guards should be solely in charge of the said matter and if police forces are deployed, then the ratio should be fixed instead of deciding on a case-to-case basis.