Centre to file affidavit over security checks

Author: Dhananjay Mahapatra
Publication: The Times of India
Date: January 21, 2006

On the Centre's plea against exempting HC judges from airport security checks, the supreme court on Friday sought to know why Priyanka Gandhi's husband Robert Vadra was being exempted from such checks.

The Centre's petition was against the Rajasthan HC order saying it was unfair not to exempt holders of constitutional posts like HC judges from pre-embarkation checks at airports when this exemption is given to non­constitutional post holders like the cabinet secretary.

The petition was admitted by a three-judge bench of the apex court, which had no problem with the first 20 of the 21 persons listed by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security exempting them from pre-embarkation security checks at civil airports.

The list framed on August 10, 2005, after the HC directive, included the chief justices of the HCs but not the judges. Category 21 on the list said exemption would also be extended to. "Shri Robert Vadra, while travelling with SPG protectees".

Solicitor general G E Vahanvati indicated that Vadra had to travel with the SPG protectees frequently because of his family ties. He said the "exemption was valid only when he was travelling with any of the SPG protectees. And his spouse is one". The bench asked, "Which other spouse is given this exemption? Your list does not mention any such exemption extended to spouses of the dignitaries mentioned in the list."

Vahanvati said it was extended to the spouses of those exempted from pre-embarkation checks, but added that he would take instructions from the authorities concerned and file an affidavit.

Seeking stay of the HC order, the Centre said, "Exemption from pre-embarkation security checks is not only based on the 'warrant of precedence' but also based on factors such as the level of security coverage on the dignitary which would virtually preclude the possibility of any prohibited\dangerous items from being introduced on board through such dignitary or his or her baggage."

The HC last year had castigated the department of civil aviation for not realising the distinction between judges who hold constitutional posts, and the cabinet secretary.

Back                          Top