Nagpur High Court Rejects PIL on State-Funded RSS Security
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to terminate state-funded Z-plus security for the offices of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in Nagpur and for its chief, Mohan Bhagwat. The PIL also demanded the recovery of security costs from the RSS organization.
Court Cites 'Specific Motive' in Dismissal
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Anil Kilor, observed that the plea appeared to have been filed with a "specific motive" and rejected it on that ground. The court did not delve into the broader policy questions raised by the petition, instead focusing on its perceived underlying purpose.
Petitioner's Arguments and Legal Precedent
The petition was filed by Nagpur-based social activist Lalankishore Singh. He argued that the central government, by providing Z-plus security cover to an unregistered organization and its top leader, was misusing taxpayers' money instead of requiring the group to bear the cost itself.
Singh's plea cited the Supreme Court's ruling on February 27, 2023, in the Mukesh Ambani security case. In that judgment, the court held that in special circumstances, security costs should be fully recovered from the concerned person or organization. Based on this precedent, the petitioner demanded that the state recover approximately ₹40-45 lakh per month spent on RSS security in Nagpur from the Sangh or individuals linked to it.
Advocate's Contentions and Court's Response
Advocate Ashwin Ingole, representing the petitioner, contended that the state-funded security arrangement for the Sangh's offices and for Bhagwat contradicted the principle that exceptional protection, when not mandated for constitutional or statutory reasons, must be paid for by the beneficiary, not by the public exchequer.
However, the court chose not to rule on this broader policy issue. Instead, it emphasized doubts about the petition's underlying purpose and declined to entertain the relief sought, effectively upholding the current security arrangements without addressing the financial recovery aspect.
Implications and Context
This dismissal leaves the state-funded Z-plus security for RSS offices and Mohan Bhagwat intact, at least for now. The case highlights ongoing debates about the allocation of public resources for security details of non-governmental entities and leaders. While the petitioner sought to apply the Supreme Court's precedent on cost recovery, the High Court's focus on the petition's motive prevented a substantive ruling on the financial principles involved.
The decision underscores the judiciary's cautious approach in cases perceived to have ulterior motives, even when they raise significant questions about public expenditure and accountability. It also reflects the complex interplay between security needs, legal precedents, and public interest litigation in India's judicial landscape.
