Since the Supreme Court verdict last Thursday, most of the former prime ministers and ministers have returned the government vehicles they had been using for private purposes long after the expiry of their tenures. It is good to see top politicians heed the apex court decision. The verdict has also rightly asked for the return of the civil servants and security personnel employed in the services of the deceased former royalties and late prime ministers.
It’s preposterous that the government so far had done nothing to return the security provisions of those who had already passed away and turned a blind eye while the same provisions were being abused by unauthorized personnel. But there seems to be some confusion regarding the verdict which also, as most initially read it, called on those designated VVIPs to return their security briefs. This is, for a number of reasons, a more delicate matter than return of vehicle facilities.
Most of the VVIPs are prosperous enough to buy their own vehicles. In fact, many own multiple vehicles but still choose to ply government cars and vans while also claiming fuel expenses. Thus asking them to return the government vehicles they had been using illegally makes perfect sense. But asking them also to return their security personnel is trickier. Who would be responsible if something untoward happens to one of the top political leaders or VVIPs, who, on the face of rising crimes and growing culture of impunity, do have a legitimate claim on security? But as it turns out, the Supreme Court seems to have ordered the government to take back only vehicles and fuel facilities, and, as it has made clear, has not issued any order asking the government to also take back security personnel of VVIPs.
As the SC now says, it is entirely up to the government and the bodies under it to make the final decision on the allocation of vital benefits to those it deems worthy. Which, again, is logical. The judiciary, in the normal course of things, cannot encroach on the government’s right to issue perks and benefits, or vice-versa. But despite the court’s clarification, the importance of proper evaluation of security details and other facilities of top politicians and other important officials cannot be denied. For instance, if there was some sort of oversight over the distribution of state benefits, the security and vehicle facilities designated for dead kings and prime ministers would already have been revoked.
This indicates deep loopholes in the government’s security threat and benefits evaluation mechanism. What seemed to be happening up until now is that the top leaders and politicians decided, for themselves, how much benefit they deserved, a clear case of violation of the government officials’ accountability towards the people. We hope that political parties don’t see the SC decision as a tool to curtail their legitimate security and other facilities, but as an important step in cleaning up the government machinery by making the public officials more accountable.