Subramanian Swamy, a former member of the Rajya Sabha, filed a petition with the Delhi High Court, alleging that the Centre had neglected to make adequate security arrangements at his private residence in the capital after he was recently ordered to turn over possession of his government residence to the authorities. The Center was given extra time and instructed to execute an affidavit by Justice Yashwant Varma.
A copy of the affidavit was entered into the record by the Central Government’s attorney, who also notified the court that a joint security evaluation had been completed.
The complete security system is prepared. The Centre claimed that guards were controlling security of the entire city during the holiday season, no arrangements could be made. The Court dismissed this claim.
“Oh, kindly! Don’t make such broad generalisations, especially in the morning. The court questioned: Did you remove his security protection and assign them to oversee security at festivals? To refute the assertion made by the center’s attorney, the petitioner’s attorney entered into the record a few images.
The Center’s legal counsel requested, if there is room, a guard room. If not, we can station six guards there and rotate them. In addition, the counsel stated that we put up a tent for the guards if there was no room. The petitioner is a security protected under the Z category, according to the counsel. The Central Government specified the court that security provisions would be made at his private residence.
On September 14, 2022, the Delhi High Court gave BJP leader and former Rajya Sabha member Subramanian Swamy six weeks to leave the official residence. He stepped down as an MP in April 2022. Following the expiration of the five-year period, he had requested re-allocation of the government housing, claiming security concerns. The bench made mention of the state’s argument that it has no obligation to people who have been given security protection.
On behalf of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Sanjay Jain stated that it is virtually impossible to reassign the lodging to the petitioner. The petitioner owns a home in Delhi’s Nizamuddin East neighbourhood. Additionally, he said that some council ministers required the accommodations. There are also Supreme Court and High Court judges.
ASG argued that the security protection offered to the petitioner had not been lowered. He is still protected in the Z category. According to ASG, the petitioner’s security threat assessment indicated that he does not need government lodging. While they are unable to provide housing, Sanjay Jain informed the court that the protective agencies will provide their services at Swamy’s private property in Nizamuddin East. According to ASG Jain, Swamy has been identified as an unauthorisedoccupant of the aforementioned premises under the Public Premises Act.
