Personal Security to people
I am not sure if this is the right forum to raise and discuss this issue.
All of us are aware that, the kind of security provided to the select few individuals. X, Y, Z, Z+ and all. I wonder,what are the norms for entitlement for getting such personal security.
Public Office bearers are fine, such as PM, President, Vice President, Cabinet Ministers, CMs etc. To certain extent MPs, MLAs. But there are several people, who do not hold any public office but are provided with high or SPG or NSG security. For example, Ms Sonia Gandhi and Mr. Rahul Gandhi are just MPs and therefore, shouldn't they be provided security just like other MPs? Mr. Robert Vadra or Ms Priyanka Gandhi Vadra are not even MPs. Are they provided security just because they belong to particular family? Similarly, Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav is not even a MP and still being provided with personal security. Several separatists are also provided personal security.
There is a huge cost involved to public exchequer for providing personal security to people. Therefore, I was wondering, if it would be possible for Govt. to make rules for providing personal security ONLY to public office bearers and if any other people such as film actors, Sport persons, celebrities and corporate big wigs need security, the charges should be borne by their respective political party, organization or individual as it happens in case of a common citizen who needs a protection against a life threat and has to bear the cost of personal security.
Your views please. more
All of us are aware that, the kind of security provided to the select few individuals. X, Y, Z, Z+ and all. I wonder,what are the norms for entitlement for getting such personal security.
Public Office bearers are fine, such as PM, President, Vice President, Cabinet Ministers, CMs etc. To certain extent MPs, MLAs. But there are several people, who do not hold any public office but are provided with high or SPG or NSG security. For example, Ms Sonia Gandhi and Mr. Rahul Gandhi are just MPs and therefore, shouldn't they be provided security just like other MPs? Mr. Robert Vadra or Ms Priyanka Gandhi Vadra are not even MPs. Are they provided security just because they belong to particular family? Similarly, Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav is not even a MP and still being provided with personal security. Several separatists are also provided personal security.
There is a huge cost involved to public exchequer for providing personal security to people. Therefore, I was wondering, if it would be possible for Govt. to make rules for providing personal security ONLY to public office bearers and if any other people such as film actors, Sport persons, celebrities and corporate big wigs need security, the charges should be borne by their respective political party, organization or individual as it happens in case of a common citizen who needs a protection against a life threat and has to bear the cost of personal security.
Your views please. more
Viewed by 247
View all 10 comments Below 10 comments
I agree Public Security should not be provided to such persons mentioned by Mr. Atul Jauhari. Their Security should be immediately withdrawn to save public money. Rasik Dagli Advocate more
Aug 16
Its a valid question as to why the public money collected by taxing them heavily be wasted by providing protection to these corrupt and selfish politicians! The existing system needs to be reviewed providing for recovery of the cost of security provided to other than those holding public offices at the highest level. more
Aug 15
The comment of Sri Chand K Sharma stands legally and morally bound on the issue of Security to Life . Even a local Social / Political Personality if notifies a threat of life , shall be allowed paid Security . All others who thinks of threats , are allowed only licensed Revolver as every one know . The issue of Sri Rajiv' s Family for provision of Government Security has its importance in terms of many considerations at National Interest . more
Aug 12
In that case Nehru-Gandhi family should bear the expenses of their security because there is no National Interest involved with that family. more
Aug 12
Security at public expense should be allowed to person holding Constitutional posts including recognized leader of opposition. There may be special reasons for extending such cover to a person who is not holding any constitutional post but has been under threat for performing some government duty. All others should have their on security system like ordinary citizens. Sonia Gandhi and her family is covered under a special act of Parliament passed after death of Rajiv Gandhi. The Government and Parliament may review it if necessary. more
Aug 11
Whole question is, when does it becomes necessary. When Mr. Rajiv Gandhi was killed, he was ex-PM. What about Sonia, Robert and Priyanka? Did they ever held any constitutional post? And there can only be one leader in a Political Party, not many. more
Aug 12
Here the question is WHY AT ALL SECURITY is to provided to all these rotten politicians/leaders as if all the general public are criminals? Even the ministers and PM don't need any personal security at the cost of common men. As you sow so you reap. more
Aug 11
