PM Modi security lapse case: Supreme Court refuses to entertain Punjab’s request for statements of witnesses

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s cavalcade stranded on a flyover 30 km away from Hussainiwala owing to road jams by protesting farmers, in Punjab, on January 5, 2022. 
| Photo Credit: Special arrangement

The Supreme Court of India on Friday (November 22, 2024) did not accede to a request by the Punjab Government to provide the statements of witnesses who appeared before the Justice Indu Malhotra Committee inquiring into a security lapse which left the Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s convoy stuck on a flyover in the State on January 5, 2022.

Punjab Government had sought the accurate statements of the witnesses recorded in the Committee’s confidential report on the incident in order to aid in taking actions against the “delinquent” officials.

“The State of Punjab may conduct the enquiry against delinquent officials without the aid of the statements of the witnesses… We find no grounds for entertaining the plea,” a Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant observed.

In August 2002, the then Chief Justice N.V. Ramana after perusing the confidential report, had orally shared in open court that the Committee had blamed a senior State police officer for failing to discharge his duty to maintain law and order despite the availability of sufficient personnel.

“Ferozepur SSP failed to discharge his duty to maintain law and order. He failed to do this even though sufficient force was available and even though he was informed two hours before that the Prime Minister will enter that route,” Chief Justice Ramana (now retired) had conveyed to the waiting lawyers after perusing the report of the Justice Malhotra Committee.

The Prime Minister’s convoy was held up at a flyover owing to a blockade by protestors in Ferozepur after which he had to return from Punjab without attending events, including a rally.

The terms of reference of the Justice Malhotra Committee, constituted by the Supreme Court, had included unearthing the causes for the breach; the persons responsible and to what extent; remedial measures to improve the security of the Prime Minister and other protectees; and any other recommendations for the security of constitutional functionaries.