IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 9.6.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN WRIT PETITION No.33724 of 2007 J.Jayalalithaa ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Chief Secretary Secretariat Chennai-600 009 2. The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu Home Department Secretariat Chennai-600 009 3. The Director General of Police Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Chennai-600 004 4. The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Egmore, Chennai-600 008 5. M.Karunanidhi Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Secretariat Chennai-600 009 ... Respondents This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to ensure full protection to the petitioner herein at the residence as required to a person who has got threat perception and has been ordered to be given protection in the category of "Z +" (very very high risk) by providing "Z +" security scale as mandated in the circulars/directions/orders in this context (and thus render justice.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For petitioner : Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan For respondents : Mr.G.Masilamani Advocate General Assisted by Mr.D.Srinivasan Additional Government Pleader O R D E R Heard Mr.A.Navaneethakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.G.Masilamani, the learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.D.Srinivasan, the learned Additional Government, Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has stated that she is the General Secretary of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, which is a State Political Party recognised by the Election Commission of India. The petitioner was a Member of Parliament of the Rajya Sabha from 1984 to 1989. She has also served as a Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly between 1989 and 1991, when she was the leader of the Opposition in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. The petitioner was the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu from 1991 to 1996 and from 2001 to 2006. 3. The petitioner has further stated that she has been the target of attack for the opposition parties including the members of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam party. On 25.3.1989, when the Budget session of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly was being held, she was assaulted in the presence of the fifth respondent, who was the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu at that time. 4. The petitioner has further stated that after the Ministry headed by the fifth respondent had been dismissed in the month of January 1991, President's Rule was imposed in the State of Tamil Nadu. After the dissolution of the Ministry headed by the fifth respondent and on the imposition of the President's Rule in the State of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner had come from Hyderabad to Chennai. On her arrival, she had found that National Security Guard Commandos, who were also called as 'Black Cats', had been assigned to protect her. Since then, the National Security Guard Commandos had been protecting the petitioner whenever she moved out or travelled, as she has been placed in the "Z +" category of Security. 5. The petitioner has further stated that during her tenure as the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu, she had taken strong action against several militant groups, such as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam (LTTE), Tamil Nadu Liberation Army (TNLA), Tamil National Retrieval Troop (TNRT) and the Naxalites, who were earlier https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ called as peoples' War Group (PWG) Naxalites. She had also initiated several steps to declare the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam as a banned organisation in India. Subsequently, the said militant outfit was declared as a banned organisation under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The ban imposed on the said militant outfit continues till date as it has been extended, periodically. The petitioner had also taken steps in curtailing the illegal activities of the forest brigand Veerappan, who was killed in the year 2004, when she was the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu. 6. It has also been stated that several attempts have been made to eliminate the petitioner politically. After she had demitted office as the Chief Minister in the year 1996, as well as in the year 2006, the Police Protection given to her by the State had been drastically reduced and it was almost non-existent. However, false claims have been repeatedly made by the respondents as though sufficient security had been provided to the petitioner. 7. The petitioner has further stated that several attempts have been made on her life within a short span of time from the year 2006. The first one was on 8.11.2006, when a person by name Joshua Karthikeyan had made an attempt to gain entry into her house by forcibly dashing his vehicle against the gate guarding her house. The second incident had taken place on 16.10.2007, when a stranger entered her house through the main gate and had reached the first floor of the house where the petitioner's personal room is located. Curiously, on both the occasions, the Police Department had made statements claiming that the intruders were mentally retarded persons. 8. The petitioner has also stated that apart from the attack on her in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly in the year 1989, another attempt on her life was made, on 24.2.1990, when she was returning from Pondicherry, after participating in an election campaign. A lorry was deliberately rammed against her vehicle, due to which she had sustained grievous injuries leading to her hospitalisation for several days. The lorry driver had been let off with a token fine of Rs.1,750/-. The petitioner has claimed that the cumulative effect of the incidents narrated by her would illustrate that her life is in constant danger and the persons who stand to gain by her death are her political adversaries. 9. The petitioner has further stated that after the incident, on 16.10.2007, no Police Officer had met her or made any attempt to meet her to enquire about her personal safety. Immediately after the incident had taken place on 16.10.2007, several representations were given to the respondents 2 to 4 with regard to the lack of sufficient security for the protection of the petitioner. Inspite of such representations sufficient security has not been provided to the petitioner, as claimed by the respondents. In fact, a statement had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been made by the fifth respondent in the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly claiming that 50 Police personnel were on duty at the petitioner's house for each shift, which would mean that 150 Police personnel were deployed every day, as reported by the print and electronic media, on 18.10.2007. However, on 19.10.2007, it was reported that only 50 Police men were on duty for all the three shifts together. 10. It has also been stated that under similar circumstances, the former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Shri N.Chandrababu Naidu, has been provided with 57 security personnel during each shift. 11. The petitioner has also stated that the protection given to her at the Airports, which are available for all the National Security Guard protectees, has been minimised at the instance of the fifth respondent. 12. The petitioner has also stated that she is given to understand that for a person who is provided with Security in the "Z +" category, the following arrangements should always be made available, round the clock. "a) Anti sabotage Squad to check any possible bombs, fire arms etc. within the vicinity of the residence of the protectee and such a search shall be made with sniffer dogs; b) The vehicle owned by the person and the convoy vehicles have to be checked in a routine manner; c) Extension Mirror (bed type) to check the vehicles which are coming within the vicinity of the residence of the person under protection; d) Door Frame Metal Detector (DFMD); e) Letter bomb detector to check the letters addressed to the person under the coverage of security; f) Bullet proof vehicle with spare vehicle of the same nature have to be provided; g) Ambulance with blood group of the protectee, stretcher and other life supporting items such as oxygen, first aid box with medicines, etc., should be made available; https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ h) Jammer vehicle; i) Police drivers (not private drivers hired by the Police Department, but drivers recruited by the Police Department); j) Close circuit TV to monitor the movement of persons and vehicles; k) Petrol driven vehicles must be provided and not diesel driven vehicles; l) Walkie-Talkie sets have to be provided to the protective force which is an essential instrument to communicate; m) Search light around the house should be made available; and n) Provision of two vehicles." 13. It has also been stated that the above arrangements are essential and form an integral part of the security system given to persons who are placed under the "Z +" high risk Security category. However, none of the above arrangements had been made available at any point of time, after she had demitted office as Chief Minister. Inspite of knowing full well that such arrangements are to be made to provide sufficient security to persons in the "Z +" Security Category, the respondents have failed to comply with the requirements. 14. It has also been stated that the Police protection to be provided to the petitioner is not a bounty flowing from the pleasure of the respondents as the petitioner is a former Chief Minister, who is holding the rank of a Cabinet Minister in view of her position as the Leader of the Opposition in the State of Tamil Nadu. The State Government has to fulfil its duty of protecting every person to whom the National Security Guard Protection is being provided. 15. It has also been submitted by the petitioner that in the year 1988, the Special Protection Group Act, (Act No.34/1988), which is a Central Legislation, had come into force. Once a person is identified for being provided with the protection under the statute, the responsibility of providing such protection cannot be abdicated by the State Government as it is a statutory responsibility. Such protection is to be given not only to the protectee but also to the immediate members of his or her family. The State Government ought to have provided such protection to the petitioner complying with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same standards prescribed by the Central Government. Providing security to a person in the "Z +" category is not dictated by the will and pleasure of the State Government as it is its constitutional duty. However, inspite of such obligations, the State Government has not even provided the minimum protection to the petitioner, despite repeated threats to her life. The State Government is liable and responsible to protect the rights of the petitioner, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, with such force, arms and equipment, which are necessary for her full and complete protection. Since the State Government has failed in fulfilling its obligations, the present writ petition has been preferred before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the reliefs as stated therein. 16. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent the allegations made by the petitioner in her affidavit filed in support of the writ petition had been denied. 17. It has been stated that the petitioner has been given the "Z +" Scale of security with National Security Guard cover. The protection given was not reduced even after the petitioner had demitted office as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. After demitting office during the year 1996, the petitioner had been provided with "Z +" Scale of Security with the necessary security arrangements which are as follows: (i) 2 Armed guards of 1 HC & 4 PCs each (ii) 2 Personal Security Officers-1 Inspector and 1 PC equipped with Pistol/Sten Gun, have been provided for three shifts. (iii) An armed escort of 1 SI & 3 PCs in 2 shifts (iv) One watcher at a time in 2 shifts. Summary Inspr. SI HC PC Tota l Armed Guard - - 2 8 10 PSO 3 - - 3 6 Armed Escort(2 shifts) - 2 - 6 8 Screening Watchers - - - 2 2 NSG Commandos - - - - 6 Total 32 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 18. Further, enhanced security of "Z +" with National Security Guard cover has been provided from 1.6.2001 as per the Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence Circular Memorandum in SCA.8 No.58333-1/2001, dated 1.6.2001. This was ratified by the Security Review Committee, dated 5.7.2001. The same scale of security has been provided to the petitioner even after she had demitted office in the year 2006 and it is continued till date. 19. It has been further stated that as per the guidelines communicated by the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, (Security Arrangements for the protection of Individuals), the following arrangements have to be made for the security of "Z +" scale category protectees. "Sufficient number of uniformed static guards at residence and office, two escorts of strength 1-3 each with automatic weapons, two personnel security officers round the clock - one in uniform with automatic weapon and the other with a concealed small arm, two Watchers at a time during day and one at night, Bullet Proof Car for road journey, 1 Inspector/SI in charge of security arrangements round the clock, perimeter wall and fencing of sufficient height, perimeter lighting, access control measures for searching, frisking, screening and communcation - 2 at a time including 1 lady Officer, Area Security around the residence and Office, Regular anti-sabotage check by trained security personnel with technical equipment and sniffer dogs and Ring Round teams at the venues of public functions depending on local threat perception." 20. It has also been stated that a decision had been taken in the Security Review Committee in its last meeting held on 25.9.2007, to continue "Z +" Scale of Security with National Security Guard cover to the petitioner and the same has been provided. In keeping with the "Z +" Security Scale requirements, the following security arrangements had been made for the protection of the petitioner. The details of police strength are as follows: Details of Police Strength Total i. One Personal Security Officer (PSO) with 9mm (1x3) = 3 pistol at the level of Inspector at a time in 3 shifts ii. One additional PSO in the rank of Head (1x3) = 3 Constable with AK-47 weapon https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ iii Two escorts consisting of 2 SIs and 6 (2+6x3)= 24 other ranks (each with strength of 1 SI and 3 ors) with automatic weapons, in 3 shifts iv. Uniformed Police Guard with 2 Sentries (2 + 8)= 10 at a time v. Two PCs/HCs for watcher duty security (2 + 1)= 3 screening and for communication during day and one at night vi. NSG Commandos carrying fire power in two (1+5x2)= 12 cars while the VIP is on the move in 2 shifts Total 55 21. It has also been submitted that in addition to the arrangements mentioned above, the local police is also regularly marching Police beats and Police patrol to watch and screen the movement of strangers in the area. Strong bandobust is also arranged whenever party functions or gatherings are organised in the Poes Garden area. Apart from the police security arrangements, there are other privately engaged security personnel deployed by the petitioner round the clock, to man the main entry gate and to verify the genuineness of the visitors and the permission is granted to them by the inmates for their entry. 22. It has been further submitted that on 8.11.2006, when one Karthick @ Joshua, a resident of 4/165 Selva Vinayagar Street, Thandalam, Chennai, attempted to trespass into Poes Garden, the Police Personnel on security duty at the residence of the petitioner prevented him from committing such trespass. He was handed over to the Teynampet Police Station and a case in Crime No.937/2006, was registered against him. He was convicted to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 weeks, under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) Indian Penal Code in CC.No.376 of 2007. He was also fined a sum of Rs.200/-. The allegation that the Police protection to the petitioner was reduced to almost zero level after the petitioner demitted office is not true. Enhanced security of "Z +" with National Security Guard security cover has been provided to the petitioner from 1.6.2001, as per the Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence Circular Memorandum in SCA.8 No.58333-1/2001, dated 1.6.2001, as stated earlier. 23. With regard to the incident, which had taken place, on 16.10.2007, it has been stated that one Dhandapani, who was working as a Security guard at Mahendra Garments Company, Tiruppur, had come to Chennai with the intention of requesting the petitioner for a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ security guard job. He is a sympathiser of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and his late father was an active member of the party. When Dhandapani had approached the main gate at the residence of the petitioner he was stopped by the Sentry Police Constable, but Rajarajan, the petitioner's own privately engaged security staff deployed at the main entry gate, had allowed Dhandapani inside the premises. However, Thiru. V.Kuppuraj, the Personnel Security Officer of the petitioner and a few others available at that place, had questioned Dhandapani and later, he was handed over to E-3, Teynampet Police Station. A case in Crime No.1344/2007, had been registered against Dhandapani, under Section 448 Indian Penal Code, based on the complaint of S.Poonkundran, working as an Assistant at the petitioner's residence. 24. It has been further stated that neither the National Security Guard Personnel nor the Police Personnel are allowed to enter the premises of the petitioner. Only the Personal Security Officers and the Additional Personal Security Officers are allowed to enter the premises. The private Security Guards engaged by the petitioner at the main entry gate are allowed to move inside the premises. By practice, whenever any visitor approaches for entry at the gate, the private security guard decides, in consultation with the inmates at the residence, whether the visitor is to be allowed inside the premises or not. Only the visitors, who are specifically permitted by the private security guards, are allowed to be frisked and their belongings are checked by the Police Security Personnel. 25. The allegation of the petitioner that no Police Officer had met her or made any attempt to meet her to enquire about her personnel safety is incorrect as an Investigation Officer had visited the petitioner's residence and when he had wanted to meet the petitioner, he was not allowed to meet her. However, the Investigation Officer made enquiries with the inmates and the party functionaries present at the place and he had recorded their statements. 26. It is further stated that in order to review the security arrangements provided to the petitioner and other protectees, a Security Review Committee meeting is conducted by the State Government once in 6 months in which senior Indian Administrative Service and Indian Police Service Officers participate. 27. It has been further submitted that appropriate action has been taken to protect the petitioner by deploying sufficient police personnel as per the "Z +" Security Scale and it would be continued as long as it is found to be necessary. After the recent incidents, which are reported to have taken place, fresh threat assessment reports were called for from the Chennai City Police, Special Branch https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C.I.D, Special Division, 'Q' Branch C.I.D. and Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau. The inputs obtained from the above units would be placed in the Security Review Committee meeting to be convened, on 26.10.2007. The security arrangements provided to Shri N.Chandrababu Naidu, the former Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh, would have been decided and necessary arrangements would have been made by the Government concerned according to his threat perception and depending upon the local situation in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 28. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is being provided with a strength of 55 police personnel for her security. Whenever the petitioner moves out of the city, including her visits to Siruthavur in Kancheepuram District and Kodanad in the Nilgiris District, regular security schemes are being drawn and communications sent to the concerned jurisdictional officers to provide "Z +" Scale of Security. In addition, the local Police is also regularly marching Police beats and Police patrols to watch and screen the movement of strangers in the area. Strong bandobust is also arranged whenever the party functions or gatherings are organised in the Poes Garden area. Further, privately engaged security personnel have been deployed by the petitioner to man the main entry gate and to verify the genuineness of the visitors visiting her residence. Proper security arrangements are being made whenever the petitioner visits Airports in Tamil Nadu. During her visits to the Airports the security Branch alerts the local police and adequate bandobust is being provided. 29. It has also been submitted that regular anti-sabotage checks at the surrounding areas of the petitioner's residence and in the convoy are being made by Bomb Detection and Disposal trained personnel with the help of sniffer dogs and equipments. Provision of ambulance with life saving medicines and inclusion of Jammer vehicle in the convoy are not the security components for "Z +" category. Two petrol driven escort vehicles for the use of the State Police Personnel and two more escort vehicles for the use of the National Security Guard personnel are being regularly provided in connection with the security arrangements made for the protection of the petitioner. These escort cars are privately hired from the approved operators and the drivers are security vetted on a regular basis. The Police Personnel deployed for the security of the petitioner from SSD, Security Branch, National Security Guard personnel and Local Police are using Walkie-Talkie sets for their communication. Sufficient lighting facilities are already available around the residence of the petitioner. 30. It has also been submitted that the Security Branch is having only Bullet Proof Ambassador cars. The petitioner had not opted to use the Bullet Proof Ambassador Car for her movement. The petitioner has been travelling in her own vehicle. A letter has also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been received by the Government from the Additional Director General of Police, (Intelligence) in this regard, on 4.11.2003. The State Government is bound to protect the petitioner, who is a former Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu, since she is categorised as a protectee of "Z +" Security Scale. The State Government had never failed to provide adequate security arrangements to the petitioner on "Z +" Security scale. The Bullet Proof Ambassador car is always available for the use of the petitioner and if she prefers to use the Bullet Proof Ambassador car, it would be provided and it would remain in her convoy. 31. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents are incorrect. The averment that the petitioner is given "Z +" Scale of security with National Security Guard cover and that the protection given has not been reduced even after the petitioner demitted office as the Chief Minister has been denied. 32. It has also been stated that the State Government cannot take credit for providing the security as National Security Guard cover has been provided by the Central Government. What has been shown under the heading ‘summary’ has not been provided. It is a false claim that "Z +" category of Security has been provided to the petitioner. The marching of police beats and police patrols are non- existent. 33. It has been further stated that the employees meant for household purposes cannot be counted. They are neither trained nor authorized to use any weapons. Further, it is to be noted that a very lenient view has been taken with regard to those who had attempted to trespass into the petitioner’s house. Contradictory versions are