New Delhi, May 1: The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Centre to explain why it decided to give state security to "a businessman in Mumbai". The apex court did not name him but the reference was about Mukesh Ambani, one of the frontline business leaders of the country who was sanctioned top-level security cover by the home ministry last month.
The judges said the private businessman could have been provided with private security instead of state security. They added, referring to a recent child rape case that triggered massive street protests in the national capital, that a five-year-old would not have been raped if there was proper security in the capital.
The child was kidnapped and brutally raped in a room right below her family's apartment and the police had latter admitted that it did not send search teams to the apartment building and had allegedly offered bribe to the victim's family to maintain silence on the case. The victim is still fighting for in hospital.
Meanwhile, Union Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde, who recently said that rapes occur throughout India and not just in Delhi, sanctioned full-time security to Ambani two months after the latter received a life threat allegedly from the Indian Mujahideen. The businessman is footing the bill for ‘Z-category' security, something which is usually given to top political leaders.
The apex court has in recent times raised the issue of providing abundant security to the VIPs at the cost of the safety of the average Indian. The judges, while referring to many politicians with criminal charges on Wednesday, asked why such tainted people be also provided with security at the state expense unless there are specific threat perceptions?