This unintentional disclosure is a potential security lapse that may compromise the safety of these individuals.
New Delhi: While filing a response to a contempt petition, the Delhi Police submitted details in the High Court about the addresses of protectees under its security cover, including the number of police officers assigned to them. The list includes those who were granted protection due to potential threats to their lives. This unintentional disclosure is a potential security lapse that may compromise the safety of these individuals.
Notably, documents submitted to the court are classified records but are treated as public once filed. The annexures submitted by Delhi Police officials included a district-wise list of protectees, detailing which individuals should continue receiving security cover and which should have their protection withdrawn, as per an official order from the Delhi Police Commissioner’s office. This filing contained sensitive information, including the exact addresses of protectees, their movement patterns, and specific security measures, which could heighten their vulnerability if accessed by those with harmful intent.
On October 4, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, submitted findings from the Security Review Committee meetings held on April 25 and August 2 to the High Court, in response to a contempt petition filed by Abhishek Verma, a witness in the Delhi riot case, regarding the Delhi Police’s decision to withdraw his security cover. The meetings, chaired by the Special CP for Law and Order Zone II, reviewed the security status of district protectees within Law and Order Zone II.
In the said meetings, after going through inputs received from various quarters, including from the Special Cell on April 9, it was decided by the Delhi Police to remove the security cover of multiple individuals from the total list of 38 individuals, including Verma.
Aggrieved by this, Verma, who was given protection since July 2017, approached the High Court, seeking restoration of his security cover, claiming that he was given security on the orders of the High Court for being a witness in the Delhi riot case.
In its response, Delhi Police stated that the security cover of Verma has been removed also because of the information received from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) that they do not require Verma as a witness in the riot case.
The Delhi Police informed the court that the threat perception to Verma was based on his status as a witness, and since he is no longer a witness, that threat no longer exists.
The Delhi Police, in their response to the contempt petition filed by Verma, also quoted a November 2020 order of the Delhi High Court, which while extending the security to the petitioner, had stated that the security cover will be there till CBI informs the police that they do not require Verma as a witness.
Interestingly, while CBI had informed the Special Cell of Delhi Police that Verma was not a witness in the case on October 31, 2023, the police only withdrew his security on September 20, 2024, after receiving a second letter from CBI on September 11, 2024. Verma then approached the Delhi High Court and filed a contempt petition against the Delhi Police.
On the last date of hearing in the case, the court of Justice Dharmesh Sharma postponed the matter for December 20, after the government counsel told the court that in view of the documents that were supplied by Verma’s counsel on the last date of hearing on October 7, the Special CP, Law and Order had written a letter to the DCP of the Special Cell, Delhi Police, for conducting a fresh exercise for ascertaining threat perception to the life of Verma.