http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: REGISTRAR, DELHI HIGH COURT, NEW DELHI

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/10/1996

BENCH: MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, K.T. THOMAS

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Punchhi, J.      The People of lndia, that is Bharat, gave to themselves a written  Constitution effective  from 26th  January, 1950, ordaining in  Article 74  that there  shall be  a council of ministers with  the Prime  Minister as  the Head, to aid and advice the  President. The  importance of  the office of the Prime  Minister   in  a   parliamentary  democracy  is  well understood and  needs no elaboration. In the course of time, on  October   31,  1984,   the  People   of  India  suffered assassination  of  their  Prime  Minister,  Shrimati  Indira Gandhi, during  a period  of great  turmoil and  tumult. Her son, Shri  Rajiv Gandhi  then stepped  forward to  serve the country as  Prime Minister,  when the  cult of  violence had begun and  was expected  to gain  ground. During his tenure, need was felt to provide high security to the Prime Minister of India  and the  members of  his immediate  family,  since there had been several threats to his life. A Bill which led to the  passing of  the Special  Protection Group  Act, 1988 (for short  the ‘Act’)  was introduced  in the Parliament by giving out the following:      "STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS      During   the    last   few   years,      terrorism   has    been    steadily      assuming  menacing  proportions  in      various parts  of the  country  and      abroad. In addition to indulging in      wanton killings, arson, looting and      other  heinous   crimes  with   the      object to overawing the Government,      terrorists aim  to  destablise  the      democratically  elected  Government      by resorting  to selective  killing      of prominent  members of the public      including  those  who  are  in  the      Government. During  the last  three      years, the  present Prime  Minister      has been  under several  threats to      his life.      2.   With a  view to  providing the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

    proximate  security  to  the  Prime      Minister and  the  members  of  his      immediate family,  both in India as      well as abroad, it has been decided      to   raise    a   special    force.      Accordingly, the Special Protection      Group was  set  up  in  April  1985      under the Cabinet Secretariat.      3.   The Special  Protection  Group      is intended  to serve  as a  single      specialised  agency  consisting  of      highly   motivated    professionals      charged with  the responsibility of      ensuring the  proximate security of      the Prime  Minister and the members      of his family.      4.   It is  essential that  matters      concerning  the   force  should  be      regulated   by   a   self-contained      statute which will also provide the      essential  legal   status  to   its      functioning.      5.   The proposed  legislation will      constitute the  force as  an  armed      force of  the Union.  It  will  lay      down the  terms and  conditions  of      service of the members of the force      and provide  for  its  control  and      direction.   It    has    provision      restricting the application of some      of the  Fundamental Rights  to  the      members Of the force in so far this      is necessary tor the maintenance of      discipline. Keeping  in  view,  the      exclusive  task  entrusted  to  the      force, it  is proposed  to make  it      obligatory   on    the   part    of      Ministries and  Departments of  the      Central and  State Governments  and      the   Union   Territories,   Indian      Missions abroad  and local or other      authorities, civil  or military, to      act in aid of the Group."      The Act came into force on June 2, 1988.      On December  2, 1989,  Shri Rajiv  Gandhi demitted  the office  of   Prime  Minister.   On  May  21,  1991,  he  was assassinated, whereafter  need was  felt to bring the former Prime Ministers  of India and the immediate members of their families under  the umbrella  of the  Act. Therefore  a Bill passed  by   the  Parliament  brought  forth  the  necessary amendment  with  effect  from  25-9-1991,  whereunder  every former Prime  Minister of  India was brought at par with the existing Prime  Minister of  India for  being extended  high security. The  following was  the statement  of objects  and reasons  made   in  the   Parliament  when  introducing  the amendment:      "    STATEMENT   OF   OBJECTS   AND      REASONS      Following the  tragic assassination      of Shri  Rajiv  Gandhi,  Government      have received reports that indicate      that       several        extremist      organisations, inside  and  outside      Indian are conspiring to cause harm      to the  members  of  his  immediate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

    family.   The   threat   perception      emerging   from    these    reports      confirms that  the danger  to  tile      members of  the immediate family of      the assassinated  ex-Prime Minister      is grave and serious.      2.   The  Central  Government  have      been considering ways and means for      providing adequate arrangements for      the security  of the members of the      immediate     family     of     the      assassinated   ex-Prime    Minister      consistent with  the high  level of      threat.      3.     With   a  view  to  ensuring      proximate security  for the members      of the  immediate  family  of  such      assassinated  Prime   Minister  and      assassinated ex-Prime  Minister who      continue  to   be   under   serious      threat, it  is considered necessary      that  such  security  of  the  said      members of  immediate family should      be brought  within the  purview  of      the Social  Protection Group. Since      the role  of the Special Protection      Group as at present provided by law      is to  provide  proximate  security      only  to  the  Prime  Minister  and      members of  his immediate family an      amendment of the Special Protection      Group Act,  1988  is  necessary  to      enable the Special Protection Group      to take  up the  task of  providing      proximate  security   to  the  said      members of the immediate family."      The Act was further amended w.e.f. November 16, 1994 to extend the period of security from a period of five years to ten years  from the  date of  the Prime  Minister  demitting office.      The Act  is thus  very special in nature, in as much as the Prime Minister of India and the members of his immediate family as  well as  former Prime  Ministers of India and the members of  their immediate  families form  a distinct group which are  under the  protective cover  to the Act, the only distinction being  that the  Prime Minister cannot shake off the protective cover but any member of his immediate family, a former  Prime Minister  or  as  member  of  his  immediate family, can  and may  decline such  protective cover, and in that case the obligation to provide security gets lifted.      We have  on the  spread of  life five important persons whose security is covered under the Act. They are:      (1)  Shri H.D.  Devegowda; existing      Prime Minister;      (2)  Shri V.P.  Singh, former Prime      Minister;      (3)  Shri Chander  Shekhar,  former      Prime Minister;      (4)  Shri   P.V.   Narasimha   Rao,      former Prime Minister; and      (5)  Shri  Atal   Behari  Vajpayee,      former Prime Minister.      The Act,  as its  preamble suggests,  is a  measure  to provide for  the constitution  and regulation  of  an  armed force of  the Union  for providing proximate security to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

afore-mentioned category  of persons  and members  of  their immediate families,  and for  matters  connected  therewith. Unless the  context otherwise requires, Section 2(a) defines "active duty"  in relation  to a member of the Group to mean any duty  as such member during the period when he is posted to physically  protect the  Prime Minister  of India and the members of  his immediate family, or a former Prime Minister and the members of his immediate family, wherever he or they may be.  (emphasis supplied),  Section 7 provides that every member of  the Group,  not on leave or suspension, shall for all purposes of the Act, be always on active duty and may at any time  be employed  or deployed  in any  manner which  is consistent with the duties and responsibilities of the Group under the  Act. The  expression "proximate  security" as per Section 2(g)  means protection provided from close quarters, during journey  by road,  rail, aircraft,  watercraft or  on foot or any other means of transport and shall include the places of  functions, engagements,  residence  or  halt  and shall comprise  ring round  teams,  isolation  cordons,  the sterile zone  around, and  the rostrum and access control to the person  or members  of his immediate family. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 provides that there shall be an armed force of  the  Union  called  the  Special  Protection  Group  for providing proximate  security to  (i) the Prime Minister and the members  of his  immediate family;  and (ii)  any former Prime Minister or to the members of his immediate family for a period  of ten  years from  the date  on which  the former Prime Minister  ceased to  hold  the  office  of  the  Prime Minister. Provided  that any  former Prime  Minister or  any member of  his immediate  family may  decline such proximate security. Section  14 ordains  that it  shall be the duty of every Ministry  and Department  of the Central Government or the State  Government or the Union territory Administration, every Indian  Mission, every  Local or  other  authority  or every civil  or military  authority to  act in  aid  of  the Director or  any member of the Group whenever called upon to do so  in furtherance  of the  duties  and  responsibilities assigned to  such Director  or member.  These are  the  only prominent provisions of the Act which get attracted to solve the problem  we have  in hand,  relating to  a former  Prime Minister.      Shri P.V.  Narasimha Rao, serialed above at No.4, stood summoned for  30th September,  1996  at  10.00  a.m.  as  an accused in  R.C. 1(5)  88 - State (CBl) vs. Chandraswamy and others,  before  Shri  Ajit  Bharihoke,  Chief  Metropolitan Magistrate/Additional Sessions  Judge,  Tis  Hazari  Courts, Delhi, on  which date this special leave petition was placed before us  at 10.30 a.m. as the first item. The petitioners, namely the  Commissioner of  Police, Delhi and the Director. Special Protection  Group, New  Delhi in their special leave petition had  bared themselves  in concluding,  for  reasons given, that  it was  almost impossible  for them  to provide proximate security  satisfactorily to Shri Rao when required to be  taken to  the Tis  Hazari Court  on the  date  fixed. Having regard to the constricted time situation, in which we were placed  in examining  this matter, we thought making of an interim order in favour of the petitioners as an absolute imperative and  achieved the  object by  exempting  personal appearance of  Shri P.V.  Narasimha Rao,  permitting him  to appear instead  through a  pleader before the criminal court on that day and until further orders of this Court.      Shri Narasimha Rao, obliged as he was to appear on that day before  the criminal  court, had  to be taken there as a protectee of  the Special Protection Group. But the prospect of his  being  taken  there  compelled  the  petitioners  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

approach the  Delhi High  Court suggesting that the venue of appearance and the place of trial of Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao be changed,  as on  account of  the location,  situation and topography of  the Tis  Hazari Court  complex, it was almost impossible for  the Special  Protection Group  and the Delhi Police  to  provide  to  the  protectee  proximate  security satisfactorily. Since  the Administrative  Committee of five Hon’ble Judges  of that  Court, after  discussion  with  the petitioners  declined   their  request   on  25-9-1996,  the petitioners have  approached this  Court under  Article  136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution seeking the relief of change  of venue  of the  trail from  Tis Hazari Court to either of  the venues  suggested in  the petition  or to any other  venue   found  suitable   and  consistent   with  the requirements of  the situation,  relaxing the administrative decision cf the Delhi High Court dated 25-9-1996 in order to facilitate the  petitioners to  carry  out  their  statutory duties in special facts and circumstances of the case.      On notice  being issued  for October  7, 1996. we got a response from  the Delhi  High  Court  in  the  form  of  an affidavit of its Registrar, appended with which is a copy of an extract  from the  minutes of the September 25 meeting as percepted by  the High  court in  contrast with  the minutes perceived by  the petitioners, copy whereof was annexed with their petition.  I A.  No.3 of  1996 has also been attracted Praying for  impleadment of the Coordinated Committee of all the three  district Bar  Associations of  District Courts at Delhi, viz. Delhi Bar Association, New Delhi Bar Association and Shahdara  Bar Association,  and in  the alternative  for allowing them  to join  as interveners  in the special leave petition.      Shri K.N.  Bhat, learned  Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the petitioners, at the very outset maintained that the  present petition  of the  petitioners is in no way adversarial and  that it  has  been  brought  forth  in  the uncommon situation  developed and  likely to  develop due to the repeated  appearances of  Shri Rao in the trial court in the case  afore-mentioned as well as in other cases in other courts, placed within the precincts of Tis Hazari Courts complex. Shri  Jaitley, learned  counsel appearing  for  the Registrar, Delhi  high Court  too has  maintained  that  the counter-affidavit filed  by  the  Registrar  is  in  no  way adversarial and  has been  placed on record to highlight and bare some  of the features emerging from the fact situation. The intending  intervener i.e.  the  Coordination  Committee through Shri  Rajiv Datta,  their learned  counsel, was also not adversarial in the strict sense but in opposition to the grant of the prayer suggesting that changing venue would set a bad precedent and at best timings of the trial of cases in which Shri  Rao As  an accused could be changed to 7.30 a.m. or to  any other  suitable time  before or after the regular court timings.  We  thus  have  permitted  the  Coordination Committee  to  intervene  in  the  matter  and  be  a  party respondent and  having done  so, we  grant leave in order to dispose of this matter finally on the footing that the cause before as  is not  adversarial. Learned  counsel  have  been heard at length.      We have  already dwelt  at considerable  length on  the historical aspect  of the  need for  and importance  of  the proximate security  required to be extended to the person of a former  Prime Minister. It is through an Act or Parliament that such  security stands provided; qualitatively for above than the  ordinary security  available or  extended to other persons in  authority before or after retirement from public service. The  security available  in courts and other places

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

of governance,  even  in  existence,  can  be  no  match  or substitute to  the statutory security affordable to a former Prime Minister.  The complex  and situation  of  Tis  Hazari Courts where  Shri Rao  is required  to go  in  response  to summons received  from the  Court to  Shri  AJit  Bharihoke, Chief metropolitan Magistrate/Addl. Sessions Judge, has been apprehensively described  and visualized  by the petitioners as follows:      "...    The    complex   has   five      entry/exit  gates  with  no  access      control-system  in   existence.  As      many as  250 courts  are functional      attracting  60,000-70,000  visitors      including  5000  -  10000  lawyers.      2000 car/scooters  every  day.  The      complex  also   houses  a   canteen      umpteen    number    of    lawyer’s      hutments,    innumerable    trunks,      almirahs, etc.  There is absolutely      no restriction  on movements of men      and materials within the complex.      The Court  room and Chamber of Shri      Bharihoke is  on the  ground  floor      near the gate No.1. The size of the      Court room  is approximately  30’ x      20’ with  a number  of steel/wooden      almirahs and  steel trunks  stacked      inside the  room. In  the remaining      space, there are 22 chairs, a table      and the  seating enclosure  of  the      Special   Judge.    The   corridors      provide access  to different floors      of the  entire complex and are full      of visitors  and  litigants  during      the court hours.      3.   The  information  gathered  so      far,  indicates  that  800  -  1000      media men including those of visual      media     and      thousands     of      supporters/detractors and onlookers      are likely to congregate inside the      court  complex   on  the   day   of      appearance.   All   will   try   to      converge towards  the  court  room.      Hundreds of  cars/scooters will  be      used by  this large  crowd as means      of conveyance to the court complex.      With this large assembly of people,      a   chocked   like   situation   is      anticipated  on  that  day  by  the      security agencies."      The Threat  Perception to  Shri Rao has been summarised by the appellants in this manner:      "1.  Shri   P.V.    Narasimha   Rao      continues to be the Prime target of      Sikh and Kashmiri militant groups.      2.   Reports   continue    to    be      received about the presence of Sikh      and  Kashmiri  militants  in  Delhi      waiting  for   an  opportunity  for      mounting a sensational attack.      3.   In the past enough indications      of  plans   of  LTTE   and  Islamic      fundamentalist  groups   to  target      Shri P.V.  Narasimha Rao  have come

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

    to light.  The possibility  of such      elements  gaining   access  in  the      Court  premises  in  the  guise  of      supporters/media  persons/litigants      cannot be ruled out.      4.   The   date   fixed   for   the      appearance of  Shri P.V.  Narasimha      Rao is  publicly known.  Hence  the      possibility     of      mischievous      elements,  militant  groups  taking      advantage    of    the    situation      capitalising on the difficulties in      enforcing strict access control and      thorough  anti-sabotage  checks  of      the  venue   and  the   surrounding      areas,  including   vehicles,   can      easily plant and detonate explosive      devices or  even mount 20 an attack      in the  area. Such a situation will      immediately  result  in  a  massive      stampede and  confusion leaving  no      scope at  all for evacuation of the      VIP from the area.      5.   Any law  and  order  situation      that may  develop just  outside the      Court premises  is likely to result      in  immense  confusion,  melee  and      stampede  which   will   positively      nullify all measures for evacuation      of former P.M.      6.   Demonstrations   and   counter      demonstrations are  Likely to  give      rise  to   serious  law  and  order      problems."      The Administrative  Committee of  the  High  Court  has reacted to  the above apprehensions and threat perception in the manner  reflected from  the minutes recorded on 25-9-96, set out below:      Shri Nikhil  Kumar, Commissioner of      Police,  Delhi,   and  Shri  Shymal      Dutta, Director (SPG) were heard at      length.  The   Police  Commissioner      reiterated his request for shifting      the venue  of trial  proceedings in      Mr. Narasimha Rao’s case to another      suitable   place    where    proper      security measures  could  be  taken      Shri Dutta  submitted that Shri Rao      was a  SPG protectee  and by virtue      of the  provisions of Sections 2(g)      and 14(1)  of the  S.P.G Act, 1988,      the Special  Protection Group could      cal] aid  from any authority in the      discharge of  its statutory duty of      providing Special  Protection cover      for a  period of  10 years  to  the      former    Prime    Minister,    Mr.      Narasimha Rao, wherever he went.      The Director  (SPG) was  clearly to      that the provisions made in Section      2(9) and  Section 14 of the SPG Act      were not  applicable in the case of      a person  summoned as an accused in      a case in Court.      After  due   consideration  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

    submissions made  by both  of these      officers, the request for change of      venue for  trial was  declined. The      Commissioner  of  Police  was  also      told to  move an application before      the concerned Court, if so advised.      The  Commissioner   of  Police  was      further told  that the  High  Court      would not agree to make any special      arrangement for a particular person      who is to appear as an accused in a      case before a Court and that it was      upto the  SPG/Police Authorities to      make  whatever   arrangement   they      considered necessary for safety and      security  of  a  particular  person      without  obstructing  or  hindering      the normal  course of proceeding in      court  and  the  Administration  of      Justice  and   that  the   security      arrangement may be made in a manner      that  no   obstruction  should   be      caused   to   bonafide   litigants,      witnesses, lawyers  etc. coming  to      any  court   to  attend   to  their      respective  cases  and  the  Police      should ensure  that no  obstruction      or inconvenience  is caused  to any      Judicial Officer  while  coming  or      going from  the court and in case a      Judicial  Officer   was,   somehow,      found held  up in  the traffic  jam      caused by  police control, he would      be taken  out of the traffic jam by      the police  authorities and  pvt on      free way  to reach  the court.  The      police would also make arrangements      for parking  of the vehicles, other      than   those    which   have    Bar      Association and  Judges lebels,  at      the open  triangular plot  which is      opposite Tis Hazari Complex.      The  Police   Commissioner  assured      that    while    making    security      arrangements  all  precautions,  as      may be  required, would be taken to      protect the  Judicial Officers  and      the  Court   Complex.  However,  he      contended that extra-ordinary steps      of the  situation, therefore,  some      inconvenience is bound to be caused      to Judicial  Officers, lawyers, and      litigant   public    although   his      endeavour  would  be  to  cause  as      little inconvenience  is bound   to      be  caused  to  Judicial  Officers,      Lawyers,   and    litigant   public      although his  endeavour would be to      cause as  little  inconvenience  to      all as possible."      It  is   evident  from   the  above  minutes  that  the Administrative Committee  of High Court was of the view that the provisions of Section 2(9) defining "proximate security" were not  applicable in  the case of a protectee summoned as an accused  in a court case. Additionally, the Committee was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

of the  view that  Section 14  to  the  Act  whereunder  the Special Protection  Group could seek assistance from certain authorities mentioned therein, was not attracted in the case of assistance  required from  a court.  What  the  Committee seemingly would  have meant  was that  neither  a  protectee accused  summoned   in  court   was  entitled  to  proximate security, nor  could the  summoning  court  be  required  to assist the  Group in  terms of Section 14. When attention to this stance of the Committee was drawn Shri Jaitley, learned counsel was  candid enough  to state that the High Court has no intention  to invite any pronouncement on the subject but he could not deny the fact that such view as recorded in the minutes could  be a  factor which  might have influenced the Committee. in  taking such  a  position.  Significantly  the Committee did  not dispute  the expressed  apprehensions and the threat  perception to  Shri  Rao  as  projected  by  the appellants  but  had  rather  great  expectations  from  the appellants in handling the situation of the day and on other days in a manner reflected in the minutes.      We  cannot   help  remarking   that  the  will  or  the Parliament  reflected  in  the  Act  is  bold,  unequivocal, comprehensive  and   wide  in  nature,  no-where  permitting withdrawal,  limiting  or  proscribing  of  their  proximate security statutorily  conferred on  the protecteee. The mere fact that the protectee has to go to court as an undertrial, does not disentitle him to the proximate security. His being in transit or getting within the precincts of the court does not absolve  the Group  from extending  to him the proximate security  as   threat  perception   to  him  is  in  no  way diminished. The  expression "proximate  security" has  to be given a  purposive meaning,  for, it  could never  have been intended by the Parliament that security would be restricted to places  of functions,  engagements, residence  or halt on resorting to  a  literal  meaning.  The  purposive  approach should warrant  these places  to be  wide enough  to include visits of a protectee to courts, compulsive or voluntary and in no  say can  the Group  be absolved  from  its  statutory responsibility on  the specious plea that having brought the protectee to  the court precincts, the obligation to protect him would  then shift  to the  court, who  may either, under orders, place  the protectee  back to the Group, or send him into Police  or Judicial Custody, shifting the obligation of his protection to others. A contrary view expressed on these lines by Shri Bhat deserves outright rejection. It has to be borne in  mind that  the protectee  is a  protectee all  the time, as  long as  he keeps  breathing for the period of ten years, from the date he demits office of the Prime Minister. We shall  not be  taken to  have even  remotely suggested or tried to  impinge on the power or the court to deal with the person summoned  in accordance  with law  but we wish to lay emphasis that  even in  court custody  or other  custody  as ordered by  the court,  the SPG  protective cover  cannot be lifted from  the protectee.  It goes  with the person of the protectee as  the shadow  would a  man. It is for the SPG to devise how  to render meaningful protection to the protectee wherever he  is even  when he  is under  court orders,  vide Section 2(a).      Shri Bhat  supported the  need for  change of venue not only on the apprehensions and threat perception projected by the appellants  but also  on the ground that the request for change has been made taking into account certain suggestions made by Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.S. Verma sitting Judge of this Court, who sat in Commission to report the security failures relatable to  the assassination  of late Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi. That report, in our view, is entitled to great

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

respect and  his Lordship’s  suggestions are not meant to be merely on  paper but must each out in action. Another former Prime Minister  cannot have  to be  experimentally killed in order to  realize the  gravity of  threat perception more so while undergoing  criminal trial/trials.  Emphasis  need  be laid on  Article 21  of the Constitution which enshrines and guarantees the  precious right  of life  and  liberty  to  a person,  deprivable   only  on   following   the   procedure established by law in a fair trial, assured of the safety of the  accused.  Assurance  of  a  fair  trial  is  the  first imperative of  the dispensation  of justice.  This  is  what Justice Krishna Iyer speaking for the court in Maneka Sanjay Gandhi vs.  Rani Jethmalani  [AIR 1979 SC 469 at 470] had to say:      "....Likewise, the  safety  of  the      person of an accused or complainant      is  an   essential  condition   for      participation in  a trial and where      that is  put in peril by commotion,      tumult  or  threat  on  account  of      pathological  conditions  prevalent      in a  particular venue, the request      for a transfer may not be dismissed      summarily. It  causes disquiet  and      concern to  a court of justice if a      person seeking justice is unable to      appear, present  one’s case,  bring      one’s witnesses or adduce evidence.      Indeed, it is the duty of the court      to  assure   propitious  conditions      which   conduce    to   comparative      tranquility at the trial. Turbulent      conditions  putting  the  accused’s      life in  danger or  creating  chaos      inside the  court hall may jettison      public justice.  If  this  vice  is      peculiar to  a particular place and      is persistent  the transfer  of the      case from  that  place  may  become      necessary. Likewise,  if  there  is      general consternation or atmosphere      of  tension  or  raging  masses  of      people in  the entire region taking      sides and  polluting  the  climate,      vitiating the  necessary neutrality      to hold  a detached judicial trial,      the situation  may be  said to have      deteriorated to  such an  extent as      to warrant transfer."      We repeat  that the High Court does not deny the threat perception. At  the  same  time  it  requires  avoidance  of dislocation of  the ordinary  routine  of  the  courts  when producing the  protectee in the Tis Hazari Court. It is also not disputed  that the  protectee would  have to  visit  the courts a  number of tines not only in this case but in other cases too. We are equally conscious that his appearance time and again,  would put a lot many people to inconvenience, if it is  insisted upon  that like  any other  criminal, he too should  appear   in  court  in  such  conditions.  In  these circumstances the  assessment of  the situation  made by the appellants   would   normally   require   no   contradiction particularly when  there is  no malafide  exercise of power. Should the  worst happen, the protectee alone may not depart from the world, as others too might go with him. Instinct of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

self  preservation   is  the   foremost  to   be  favourably responded.  The  concern  of  the  appellants  is  therefore justified.      It has  been urged  by the  Bar Coordination  Committee that  change  of  venue  would  set  a  bad  precedent.  The appellants too  in their minutes prepared, appended with the petition, have thought this to be the view of the Committee. The Registrar of the High Court in his counter has suggested nothing of  the kind.  Even so,  we fail to appreciate how a change of  venue would  create a precedent. The former Prime Ministers entitled  to such  security are just a handful. We can hopefully  look forward that no occasion would arise for citing the  instant case as precedent. Those who faced trial in the  court of  its origin  and those  whose avenues  were shifted, as  mentioned in  the pleadings of the parties, are merely examples but not precedents. Distinction can be drawn in the  instant matter  on two  grounds (i) those cases were cases on  their own  fact situations;  and (ii)  none of the persons   involved had  the special  protective cover of the Act.      At this  juncture, we may dispose of an objection which was  feebly   raised  in  passing  by  the  Bar  Coordinated Committee to the effect that the order of the kind passed by the Committee was not amenable to jurisdiction under Article 136 of  the Constitution.  Reliance was  placed on Dev Singh and others  vs. Registrar, Punjab and Haryana High Court and others [1987(2)  SCR 1005].  Before us  the petition  is not only  under  Article  136  but  under  Article  142  of  the Constitution as  well. A  Larger Bench in the Delhi Judicial Service Association vs. State of Gujarat [1991(4) SCC 406 at 437] has ruled that the appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 is  plenary in  nature and  this Court can determine its own jurisdiction  and its  effort in  that regard  would  be final. This Court observed as follows:      "18. There is therefore no room for      any doubt  that this Court has wide      power to  interfere and correct the      judgment and  orders passed  by any      court or  tribunal in  the country.      In addition to the appellate power,      the  Court  has  special  residuary      power to  entertain appeal  against      any  order  of  any  court  in  the      country. The  plenary  jurisdiction      of this  Court to  grant leave  and      hear appeals against any order of a      court or tribunal, confers power of      judicial superintendence  over  all      the courts  and  tribunals  in  the      territory   of    India   including      subordinate  courts  of  Magistrate      and District Judge. This Court has,      therefore, supervisory jurisdiction      over all courts in India."      (emphasis supplied)      Likewise paras  58 to  62 in  Union Carbide Corporation vs. Union of India reported in 1991(4) SCC 584 at 625 may be read with  advantage in  support.  Reproduction  thereof  is avoided to reduce the length of this judgment.      In the  same strain,  we may, to some extent, deal with the scope  of Section  14 of  the Act, whereunder assistance can be  requisitioned by  the Group  by  enjoining,  amongst others, every  local or other authority or civil or military authority to  act in  aid of  the Director  or  any  member, whenever called  upon to  do so in furtherance of the duties

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

and responsibilities  assigned to  such Director  or member. The language  employed is  wide enough to include assistance to the  Group from  all civil  and  local  authorities  when taking a protectee to a court of law. We see no reason why the court  Administration is  isolated from such requirement as long as the assistance sought does not obstruct or in any other manner  hinders court proceedings. We need not stretch this aspect  of the matter any further for reasons which are obvious.      Change  of   timings  of  court  as  suggested  by  the Coordination Committee  is out of question. We do not expect the Presiding  Officer of  the Court to start functioning at 7.30 a.m.  and then  continue till  the  end  of  the  court timings. Likewise  we cannot expect the Presiding Officer to sit for two to three hours in continuation of court timings. Such request  is totally  out of tune with the exigencies of the matter.      Lastly the  plea of  the  Coordination  Committee  that there should  be an open court trial in terms of Section 327 of the  Code of  Criminal Procedure,  we have  only to state that within  the confines  of that  provision, the Presiding Judge or  the Magistrate  of the criminal court can regulate its proceedings  and the  Presiding Judge  or Magistrate, as the case  may be, dealing with the matter/matters of Mr. Rao would likewise  do the  needful as  the circumstances of the case may warrant.      Thus for  the afore-going  reasons, we go to allow this appeal upturning  the orders of the Administrative Committee of the Delhi High Court reflected in its recorded minutes of 25th September,  1996, paving  the way  for remittal of this matter to  the High  Court for fresh consideration by making the following suggestion: 1)   On account of the threat perception to Shri Rao and the      fears  expressed   by  the   appellants  the  venue  of      trial/trials involving  Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao, former      Prime Minister  may be  shifted from  Tis Hazari  Court      complex to another venue; 2)   The appellants are directed to submit to the High Court      by Monday,  the 14th October, 1986, a list of places in      New Delhi  area which  may be  suitable for  converting      into a court, within the shortest possible time; 3)   The choice  of Patiala House Court complex as the venue      of trial,  for obvious  reasons, be  avoided  as far as      possible, as similar problems may surface there also; 4)   On  the   High  Court   selecting  the  new  venue  the      appellants and  all concerned  should make    necessary      arrangements for conducting the trial/trials pertaining      to Shri Rao; 5)   On  such   happening,  the   exemption  from   personal      appearance of  Shri Rao, granted by vide interim orders      of 30-9-1996,  may continue  until the  Court concerned      required his presence in the newly venued Court.      Ordered accordingly.