The Union government was on Friday directed by the division bench of Chief Justice Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya and Justice Arijit Banerjee of Calcutta High Court to give a detailed report in two weeks stating the reasons for which “Y plus” security is being given to former railway minister and BJP leader, Mukul Roy.

The direction came during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation by Debraj Chakraborty, a Trinamul Congress councillor of Bidhannagar municipality questioning the granting of “Y plus” security to Roy who had left TMC to join BJP.

Advertisement

While Anirban Roy appearing for the peitioner raised the question of why CRPF personnel, Partha Ghosh appearing for Roy submitted that the matter was not a PIL and exemplary cost should be imposed on the petitioner. How can the petitioner, a TMC councillor of a civic body seek removal of Roy’s security, it was submitted.

The threat perception is not a constant phenomena, additional advocate general, Avratosh Majumdar submitted. It is variable and it has to be seen whether the recipient of the security is requires it at all, it was submitted. If it is given then who is the competent authority to issue it, it was submitted.

The primary responsibilty of providing security is that of the state government since it is responsible for law and order, the additional advocate general submitted.

But then Roy had refused to take security from state government. The security was never withdrawn by the state, it was merely reduced, it was submitted.

Questions arise why security is necessary, additional solicitor general, Kaushik Chanda submitted. It needs to be seen by the deployed CRPF personnel, appearing for the petitioner, Anirban Roy submitted.

Roy had joined the BJP on 3 November, after crossing over from TMC and stepping down from his membership of Rajya Sabha.

After Roy was granted security, the state government had sent a letter to the Union home ministry, highlighting that law and order is a state matter.

The state government stated it should have been consulted regarding security provided to persons and the reasons for doing so. It also stated that the Union home ministry could not bypass the state while taking such decisions.

Although the Centre had not replied to this letter, BJP sources said Rajya Sabha MPs George Baker and Roopa Ganguly did not receive any security from the state government, even after writing letters.

The required security was ultimately provided by the Centre, they added.