Withdraw security of IAS officers in admn roles: HC to Hry

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has directed Haryana govt to recall the security of any IAS officer in the state who is dealing with civil administration responsibilities or quasi-judicial work.
It has directed the state DGP to file an affidavit informing if any IPS officer in the state has been assigned duties of civil administration in any board or corporation.
The HC has also ordered to keep the yellow book (document that outlines security protocols and categorization for protected individuals, as well as the responsibilities of the state police and security agencies) in the court record, which will be returned to the state on the next date of hearing.
The orders were passed by Justice Harkesh Manuja while expanding the scope of a criminal matter where the witness was provided police protection after he apprehended a threat to his life. The court observed that the matter had been pending for about six years, but till date only one witness had been examined.
During the hearing on Oct 4, Haryana DGP Shatrujeet Singh Kapoor joined the proceedings through video-link and submitted that Haryana being a relatively peaceful state, no security has been provided to IAS officers tasked with civil administrative works and responsibilities, except those dealing with maintenance of law and order under extraordinary circumstances.
“In view of the aforesaid stand, Shatrujeet Kapoor, DGP, Haryana is requested to file an affidavit ensuring that in case any IAS officer in Haryana dealing with civil administration responsibilities or quasi-judicial work, is provided with any security, the same is recalled with immediate effect…,” ordered the court after hearing the state police chief.
The matter has now been adjourned to Oct 28 for further hearing.
Earlier in May, the HC had asked Haryana and UT Chandigarh to inform the court about policies/ guidelines/ rules/ SOP regarding providing security to individuals as per threat perception.
In this matter, the HC had already made it clear that if an individual is provided security due to their association with a political party, religious organisation, or those associated with the entertainment industry, the state should recover the cost incurred on security cover from them.
The court also clarified that if the state considers extending security to individuals outside traditionally identified threatened categories, whether on a complimentary or partially subsidised basis, the eligibility criteria should be clearly defined.