Jagdeep Dhankhar sought bulletproof vehicles from MHA, but picked Innova months before quitting. Here's why
In June, the Ministry of Home Affairs had informed about a panel to be formed to look into the request. But by November, 2024 the former V-P's office decided to opt for a non-bulletproof Innova, instead, the report in Indian Express said.
The Indian Express report quotes a February 28, 2024 letter sent from the V-P's Secretariat to the Additional Secretary (Police Modernisation Division), MHA, regarding the condition of his official vehicles.
The then deputy secretary in the V-P's Secretariat wrote in the letter that two of the three bulletproof BMW High Security vehicles have been provided to the Hon'ble Vice President of India for day-to-day movement have become more than six years old. The third one, the letter said, is almost four years and five months old and 'will also become more than five years old in the next couple of months.'
'It has been further directed to get all three vehicles replaced with bulletproof high-security new vehicles. It is requested to get the process of replacement of three vehicles initiated at the earliest,' the letter quoted by Indian Express reads
A similar letter had been sent to the security division of Delhi Police, which clarified that procurement of vehicles is handled by the MHA, according to sources. The Vice-President gets Z-plus security cover provided by Delhi Police.
The under-secretary in the MHA wrote to the V-P's Secretariat on June 12, 2024 informing about a board of officers to be formed to inspect the three vehicles in question.
On November 28, however, an internal communication issued by Delhi Police said the V-P's Secretariat had changed Dhankhar's bulletproof vehicles since their 'life term of five years' was over. The new vehicle was an Innova, while the spare vehicle was a Fortuner, and neither was bulletproof, the communication read.
The OSD and Secretary to the Vice President were informed that these vehicles are not bulletproof and if required, such vehicles could be sought from Delhi Police, but this was turned down, according to the report quoting sources.
Jagdeep Dhankhar stepped down as Vice President of India citing health reasons on July 21.
The life term of five years was over for the vehicles, prompting a switch to non-bulletproof options.
The Congress party-led Opposition, however, has dismissed the explanation of medical issues behind the 74-year-old's abrupt move, claiming instead that 'far deeper reasons' are at play.
The resignation came on the first day of Monsoon Session of Parliament. Dhankhar had an action-packed day at the House of Elders, as the Rajya Sabha is called, before tendering resignation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
7 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Russian woman leaves India with child: SC raps Delhi Police for ‘sheer negligence' in custody dispute case
Hearing a child custody dispute between a Russian woman and her Indian husband, the Supreme Court on Friday said that she has left the country with the minor child due to the 'sheer negligence' of the Delhi Police. It also urged the authorities to get in touch with the Indian Embassy in Moscow to bring the minor back. 'At the outset, we are constrained to observe that the incident of taking away the child by the petitioner has happened apparently due to sheer negligence and failure of the Delhi Police in performing its duties in terms of the direction contained in… our order dated May 22, 2025,' a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said. The bench said that on May 22, it had directed that a discreet but strict vigil be kept on the woman. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union government, had on the last date of hearing told the SC that the woman, after leaving her rented accommodation in Delhi, had travelled to Russia via Nepal and UAE with the child. '… that means for four days, she was in Nepal. Had the Delhi Police taken any course of action, we are quite sure that preventive measures could be taken to not allow her to board the flight,' the SC said on Friday. The bench added that 'forging/duplication of the passport of the child', which has been 'committed', was also 'apparently not considered by the Delhi Police'. The SC called this a 'flagrant violation of its orders'. Observing that it was not 'that simple' matrimonial dispute, the bench said, 'The Union of India also must keep in mind that the minor child has been taken from the custody of this court. It is not a case of a custodial dispute between the parents of the child, whose custody has not been handed over to either the father or the mother. It was in exercise of our duty as parens patriae that we were resolving the issue and the child was in the custody of the court.' Bhati said that while authorities are trying to get information from Nepal, the UAE, and Russia, foreign airlines, citing privacy, were reluctant to share travel data. But the SC said that no airline can claim privacy when a crime is committed. It maintained that the authorities should make an effort to bring the child back to the country by exploring diplomatic channels and talking to the Indian ambassador in Moscow. It gave 10 days to the Delhi Police to file a fresh status report depicting some tangible action to bring the child back. Referring to its May 22 order, the bench said that it had then asked the police to maintain discreet but effective vigil over residences of both parents and to depute women personnel who could enter the woman's residence in case of an emergency. However, this was not done even after the man complained; the court pointed out, adding that the CCTV camera footage showed the woman leaving the premises with the child through the back door. Justice Kant asked, 'What were the police doing?' He added that 'it is a clear case of criminal negligence' and that the court will not spare the police. Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More
Hindustan Times
7 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
‘Sheer negligence on part of Delhi Police': SC on Russian mother fleeing India with minor
New Delhi, Aug 1 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Friday blamed the Delhi Police for "negligence" which led to a Russian woman, pitted in a bitter custody battle of her child with her estranged Indian husband, to illegally leave the country via Nepal border and asked the authorities to get in touch with the Indian embassy in Moscow to bring the minor back. The bench warned that it is not going to spare the local station house officer (SHO) and the deputy commissioner of police (DCP) for the "negligence".(ANI) A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said despite express direction issued by the top court on May 22 to keep a discreet but strict vigil on the woman, she managed to flee the country with a minor, which is nothing but "sheer negligence" and "failure". "The Delhi Police officials must have thought that it is a simple matter where a mother has taken her child and fled. Both police and ministry (MEA) have taken this lightly," the top court said, observing that it was not "that simple" matrimonial dispute. "The child was taken by the mother from the custody of this court. It is not a case of a custodial dispute between parents of the child, whose custody has not been handed over to either the father and the mother. It was in exercise of our duty as parens patriae that we were resolving the issue and the child was in the custody of the court," the apex court said. The bench warned that it is not going to spare the local station house officer (SHO) and the deputy commissioner of police (DCP) for the "negligence" and if the need arises, it will summon the commissioner of police (CP). "It is a case of complete failure or sheer negligence on the part of Delhi Police or a case of hobnobbing. On May 22, this court directed the police to maintain a discreet but effective vigil over the residential premises of both parties. "It was directed that women police officers shall be deployed for this purpose and shall be permitted to enter the woman's residence in case of any emergent situation, after associating with members of the local neighbourhood, to ensure transparency and fairness. Then how did she manage to leave the house with a child?" the bench asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhatti, appearing for the Delhi Police. Bhatti said authorities are trying to get information from Nepal, the UAE and Russia and are also seeking information from foreign airlines but they have not got any data as they say it is a matter of privacy. "No foreign airlines can claim the right to privacy in matters of the commission of crime. She travelled from Delhi to Nepal border through Bihar by road which is an arduous task but the police got no whiff of it. She left the country on duplicate or forged documents as the originals are with the court and stayed in Nepal for four days but still the Delhi Police could not take any preventive measures," the bench said. Terming the act of the Delhi Police as "flagrant violation" of the court order, the bench suggested that Bhatti take the help of Interpol and if need arises, the court will pass necessary orders. It said authorities should make an effort to bring the child back to the country by exploring diplomatic channels and talking to the Indian ambassador in Moscow. It gave 10 days to the Delhi Police to file a fresh status report depicting some tangible action to bring the child back. On July 21, the top court was informed by the Centre that the Russian woman seems to have left the country with the minor via the Nepal border and might have reached her country through Sharjah. The top court called the situation "unacceptable" and observed "gross contempt of court", and said it will be forced to pass some harsh order and direct the issuance of a Red Corner notice against the woman and the child. On July 18, the Delhi Police claimed in the top court that the Russian mother has not left the country, at least through legal means. The father is fighting the custody battle for the child with the estranged Russian woman and he alleges she was not complying with the court's order of custody of the minor. The man claimed the whereabouts of the woman and his child were unknown. On July 17, the top court directed senior Delhi Police officials to immediately trace a child and asked the Centre to issue a look-out notice with regard to the woman and the minor to ensure she did not leave the country. The mother of the child is a Russian citizen, residing in India since 2019. She initially came to India on an X-1 Visa, which subsequently expired. However, during the pendency of the court proceedings, the top court directed the extension of the visa from time to time.
Hindustan Times
8 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Religion vs dissent: Which right wins?
The Supreme Court has, through multiple judgments, affirmed the right to protest while imposing 'reasonable restrictions' on its exercise in public spaces. The Court's rationale has been that the right to protest cannot be exercised at the expense of public order, with considerations such as the smooth flow of traffic weighing on the court's mind. As the Kanwar Yatra ended this year, the Delhi Police saw a surge in complaints on traffic congestion, excessive noise and disturbances well into the night over the span of a few days. There have been reports of hooliganism, aggression and violence by the kanwariyas. In India, streets are not just for commuting: The everyday affairs of community, religion, celebration, mourning, and social life play out on them too. (ANI) There are few legal challenges to these acts or restrictions on the Kanwar Yatra. Religious practice, the reasoning goes, must be given a longer rope. But does such accommodation on disruption of regular life in the city pass muster? Every year, several groups of kanwariyas traverse the streets of North India. In recent years, the Kanwar Yatra has grown in both popularity and scale — large trucks are hired, food stalls set up (with QR codes displaying information on the seller's religion in some places) and roaring boomboxes announce its arrival. It may seem that the yatra has turned into an opportunity for unrestrained revelry and lawlessness. Often, the yatra seems no more about personal, pious observations, but a means of loud and disruptive assertion. By and large, the kanwariyas have a de facto immunity — actions that would normally invite the attention of law enforcement agencies are ignored and even actively permitted. In India, streets are not just for commuting: The everyday affairs of community, religion, celebration, mourning, and social life play out on them too. But the access to this public space, and the degree to which rights can be exercised, are differentiated. Who may occupy a public space and for what purpose is neither universal nor equal. In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (2018), the Supreme Court held that the rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of protestors have to be balanced with the rights of commuters. Permission for a demonstration or public meeting should be granted keeping in view its effect on traffic, human safety, and public tranquillity. Similarly, in Himat Lal Shah (1973), the Court held that the right to a public street can be regulated so that all can enjoy that right. In the wake of protests at Shaheen Bagh against the Citizenship Amendment Act, the Supreme Court found in 2020, that the right to dissent could not be at the cost of inconvenience to commuters and authorities must take action to prevent undue encroachments and obstructions in public spaces. In 2021, during the farmers' protests, the Supreme Court once again remarked that protests could not inconvenience the general public and lead to roads being blocked. The only time that the Kanwar Yatra has been made subject to legitimate restrictions was in 2021, when the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the yatra held despite the rising cases of Covid-19. No doubt, all sects have a right to profess and practise religion, subject to 'public order, morality and health'. The right to protest is restricted by similar considerations. Should the State then not be equally concerned by the civic inconveniences caused by religious processions, as it is by the peaceful public gathering of dissenters? If freedom and liberty are the cornerstones of our Constitution, their equal application is its chief anchor. The popular saying 'your right to swing your wrist ends where my nose begins' must apply in equal measure to all those who lay claim to a public space. Katyayani Suhrud and Trisha Chandran are lawyers practising in the Supreme Court of India. The views expressed are personal.
