Latest news with #PrivateSecurityAgencies(Regulation)Act
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
State allows banks to hire private security agencies for cash vans
Mumbai: The Maharashtra government has allowed public and private sector banks to engage private security agencies for securing cash vans used in the transportation of currency to banks and ATMs across the state. Alongside this, the state has issued a comprehensive set of guidelines and standard operating procedures (SOPs) to ensure smooth operations and prevent any untoward incidents. Until now, banks primarily relied on police personnel and guards from the Maharashtra Security Force through the Maharashtra State Security Corporation (MSSC). In some instances, private agencies were also hired. However, this is the first time the state has introduced formal regulations governing private security agencies involved in cash transportation. The new rules, titled 'Maharashtra Private Security Agencies (Private Security to Cash Transportation Activities) Rules, 2025', outline stringent requirements for private security operations. Each cash van must now be staffed with at least two armed guards and equipped with a GPS system monitored via a redundant communication protocol. The use of taxis or other hired vehicles for cash transport has been strictly prohibited. To minimise risk, the cash limit per van has been capped at ₹5 crore. The van must conform to specifications detailed in the First Schedule of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act and may be owned by the bank, the security agency, or the cash-handling firm. According to the notification issued by the state home department on April 29, 'One armed guard shall sit in the front with the driver, and another in the rear portion of the van. During transit, loading or unloading, tea or lunch breaks, or restroom stops, at least one armed guard must remain with the vehicle at all times.' Preference has been given to hiring ex-servicemen as guards. In their absence, eligible civilians may be appointed, subject to rigorous background checks. These include police and residence verification, employer reference checks, Aadhaar verification, credit history assessment, fidelity insurance, and mandatory training and certification. As per government data, Maharashtra has licensed 7,684 private security agencies, of which 5,102 are currently active. 'The criticality of secure cash movement in daily banking operations, coupled with the growing number of ATMs and banking services, necessitated clear SOPs for private agencies handling cash transport,' said a senior home department official. 'The guidelines were framed in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and the Director General of Police, Maharashtra. They are aligned with the Private Security Agencies Central Model Rules, 2020, issued by the Centre,' the official added. The rules also prescribe specifications for private cash vaults used for storing currency overnight. For instance, premises for cash-handling operations must be located in secure areas—ideally close to bank withdrawal centres or police stations—while secluded or poorly connected areas should be avoided. Facilities must include separate areas for general office functions and secure cash processing. They should also accommodate cash collection, sorting, counting, and dispatch via secure vans.
India Today
21-05-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Use of term 'bouncer' intended to invoke fear, terror in public mind: High Court
Expressing concern over the use of the term "bouncer" by private security agencies for their workers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that it is intended to invoke "fear, anxiety, and terror in the minds of the public", which is "impermissible" in any civilised also observed that the primary reason for engaging the services of a security agency or security guards is to ensure a safe and respectful space, but when these employers or employees become "miscreants", assuming themselves to be extra-constitutional authorities, using threats and brute force as weapons, it becomes a cause of grave concern for the high court was hearing a plea seeking anticipatory bail filed by a person running a private security agency. During the hearing, a single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara observed that the paramount concern for the court was the use of the term "bouncer" in the name of the security agency run by the bench referred to a "disturbing trend", wherein a particular segment of employers and employees, under the guise of a simple job description "bouncer", have started adopting a "terrorising and bullying role".It observed that they were becoming too comfortable donning an armour of hostility, aggression and subjecting the citizenry "to indignity and humiliation at will, unafraid of any negative consequences, presuming themselves to have unfettered powers over the law".The court said the state is also aware of how the term "bouncer'" is being used by the security agencies to throw around their weight and exert their influence, but it chooses to remain "unperturbed, unconcerned, and, therefore, insensitive towards such an issue".advertisementThe court also cited the definition of the term "bouncer" found in dictionaries."According to Merriam-Webster, bouncer is one that bounces: such as (a) one employed to restrain or eject disorderly persons; (b) a bouncing ground ball."According to the Oxford Dictionary, a bouncer is defined as a person employed to eject disorderly persons from a public place, especially a bar or a nightclub."The Cambridge Dictionary describes a bouncer as someone whose job is to stand outside a bar, party, etc., and either stop people who cause trouble from coming in or force them to leave," the court objective of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005, is to provide for the regulation of private security agencies and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, it would be relevant to refer to the definitions of "private security agency" and "private security guard" from the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, which does not refer to security guards as "bouncers", the court also said that security agencies have to employ security guards as per the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, and also according to the Punjab Private Security Agency Rules, 2007, in the state of Punjab."The primary reason for engaging the services of a security agency or security guards is to ensure a safe and respectful hotels and bars, their job is to curtail disruptive conduct, respectfully stop uninvited people, and remove unruly people while respecting their boundaries and without compromising their dignity," the court said."They are hired because they are trained in rapid emergency responses, skilled at being hyper-vigilant in monitoring, controlling, and reporting any nuisance, threat, or criminal activity to the police or concerned authorities, and de-escalating potentially volatile situations to ascertain the well-being, safety, and security of those around," it observed."However, when these same employers or employees become miscreants, assuming themselves to be extra-constitutional authorities and taking pride in exuberant arrogance, using threats, intimidation, physical coercion, and brute force as weapons, it becomes a cause of grave concern for the society," the court bench also said that in this part of the country, using the term 'bouncers' for workers in security agencies is intended to serve a dual purpose -- to invoke fear, anxiety and terror in the mind of the public and to intimidate others."This, in any civilised setup, is impermissible, even for the state, especially in a democratic setup, and it is demeaning in the sense that it reflexively strips off any empathetic or humanistic qualities found in a person, leaving behind a degraded, damaged, negative, and robotic connotation, akin to slaves working on the whims and commands of their masters," it court also said that it reduces the respectable role of a trained security guard to that of an enforcer, who operates through confrontation and intimidation rather than respectful civil agents or employees with their varied roles, titles, and descriptions including 'bouncers', are not above law or other human beings and are certainly not the enforcers of the law, it said."The concern is the passive endorsement of the term 'bouncer' by the state or the executive, being oblivious as to what it has started to represent."It is beyond comprehension how the identity of a particular section of employees or workers can so restrictively be permitted by the state to be defined, named, or termed as a 'bouncer'," the court judge also said that the role this court has assigned to itself is to sensitise the executive, and it is up to the state to take or not to take any steps to ensure that the term "bouncer" is not used by any recovery or security agents or their agencies for their employees so that these security guards or personnel associate their respective roles with respect, dignity and responsibility. advertisement
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Use of term 'bouncer' intended to invoke fear, terror in public mind: HC
Expressing concern over the use of the term "bouncer" by private security agencies for their workers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that it is intended to invoke "fear, anxiety, and terror in the minds of the public", which is "impermissible" in any civilised setup. It also observed that the primary reason for engaging the services of a security agency or security guards is to ensure a safe and respectful space, but when these employers or employees become "miscreants", assuming themselves to be extra-constitutional authorities, using threats and brute force as weapons, it becomes a cause of grave concern for the society. The high court was hearing a plea seeking anticipatory bail filed by a person running a private security agency. During the hearing, a single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara observed that the paramount concern for the court was the use of the term "bouncer" in the name of the security agency run by the petitioner. The bench referred to a "disturbing trend", wherein a particular segment of employers and employees, under the guise of a simple job description "bouncer", have started adopting a "terrorising and bullying role". It observed that they were becoming too comfortable donning an armour of hostility, aggression and subjecting the citizenry "to indignity and humiliation at will, unafraid of any negative consequences, presuming themselves to have unfettered powers over the law". The court said the state is also aware of how the term "bouncer'" is being used by the security agencies to throw around their weight and exert their influence, but it chooses to remain "unperturbed, unconcerned, and, therefore, insensitive towards such an issue". The court also cited the definition of the term "bouncer" found in dictionaries. "According to Merriam-Webster, bouncer is one that bounces: such as (a) one employed to restrain or eject disorderly persons; (b) a bouncing ground ball. "According to the Oxford Dictionary, a bouncer is defined as a person employed to eject disorderly persons from a public place, especially a bar or a nightclub. "The Cambridge Dictionary describes a bouncer as someone whose job is to stand outside a bar, party, etc., and either stop people who cause trouble from coming in or force them to leave," the court said. The objective of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005, is to provide for the regulation of private security agencies and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, it said. It would be relevant to refer to the definitions of "private security agency" and "private security guard" from the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, which does not refer to security guards as "bouncers", the court said. It also said that security agencies have to employ security guards as per the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, and also according to the Punjab Private Security Agency Rules, 2007, in the state of Punjab. "The primary reason for engaging the services of a security agency or security guards is to ensure a safe and respectful space. "In hotels and bars, their job is to curtail disruptive conduct, respectfully stop uninvited people, and remove unruly people while respecting their boundaries and without compromising their dignity," the court said. "They are hired because they are trained in rapid emergency responses, skilled at being hyper-vigilant in monitoring, controlling, and reporting any nuisance, threat, or criminal activity to the police or concerned authorities, and de-escalating potentially volatile situations to ascertain the well-being, safety, and security of those around," it observed. "However, when these same employers or employees become miscreants, assuming themselves to be extra-constitutional authorities and taking pride in exuberant arrogance, using threats, intimidation, physical coercion, and brute force as weapons, it becomes a cause of grave concern for the society," the court noted. The bench also said that in this part of the country, using the term 'bouncers' for workers in security agencies is intended to serve a dual purpose -- to invoke fear, anxiety and terror in the mind of the public and to intimidate others. "This, in any civilised setup, is impermissible, even for the state, especially in a democratic setup, and it is demeaning in the sense that it reflexively strips off any empathetic or humanistic qualities found in a person, leaving behind a degraded, damaged, negative, and robotic connotation, akin to slaves working on the whims and commands of their masters," it observed. The court also said that it reduces the respectable role of a trained security guard to that of an enforcer, who operates through confrontation and intimidation rather than respectful civil dialogue. Such agents or employees with their varied roles, titles, and descriptions including 'bouncers', are not above law or other human beings and are certainly not the enforcers of the law, it said. "The concern is the passive endorsement of the term 'bouncer' by the state or the executive, being oblivious as to what it has started to represent. "It is beyond comprehension how the identity of a particular section of employees or workers can so restrictively be permitted by the state to be defined, named, or termed as a 'bouncer'," the court said. The judge also said that the role this court has assigned to itself is to sensitise the executive, and it is up to the state to take or not to take any steps to ensure that the term "bouncer" is not used by any recovery or security agents or their agencies for their employees so that these security guards or personnel associate their respective roles with respect, dignity and responsibility. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
The Hindu
21-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Use of term 'bouncer' intended to invoke fear, terror in public mind: High Court
Expressing concern over the use of the term "bouncer" by private security agencies for their workers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that it is intended to invoke "fear, anxiety, and terror in the minds of the public", which is "impermissible" in any civilised setup. It also observed that the primary reason for engaging the services of a security agency or security guards is to ensure a safe and respectful space, but when these employers or employees become "miscreants", assuming themselves to be extra-constitutional authorities, using threats and brute force as weapons, it becomes a cause of grave concern for the society. The High Court was hearing a plea seeking anticipatory bail filed by a person running a private security agency. During the hearing, a single-Judge Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara observed that the paramount concern for the Court was the use of the term "bouncer" in the name of the security agency run by the petitioner. The Bench referred to a "disturbing trend", wherein a particular segment of employers and employees, under the guise of a simple job description "bouncer", have started adopting a "terrorising and bullying role". It observed that they were becoming too comfortable donning an armour of hostility, aggression and subjecting the citizenry "to indignity and humiliation at will, unafraid of any negative consequences, presuming themselves to have unfettered powers over the law". The Court said the State is also aware of how the term "bouncer" is being used by the security agencies to throw around their weight and exert their influence, but it chooses to remain "unperturbed, unconcerned, and, therefore, insensitive towards such an issue". The Court also cited the definition of the term "bouncer" found in dictionaries. 'According to Merriam-Webster, bouncer is one that bounces: such as (a) one employed to restrain or eject disorderly persons; (b) a bouncing ground ball. 'According to the Oxford Dictionary, a bouncer is defined as a person employed to eject disorderly persons from a public place, especially a bar or a nightclub. "The Cambridge Dictionary describes a bouncer as someone whose job is to stand outside a bar, party, etc., and either stop people who cause trouble from coming in or force them to leave," the Court said. The objective of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005, is to provide for the regulation of private security agencies and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, it said. It would be relevant to refer to the definitions of "private security agency" and "private security guard" from the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, which does not refer to security guards as "bouncers", the Court said. It also said that security agencies have to employ security guards as per the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, and also according to the Punjab Private Security Agency Rules, 2007, in the State of Punjab. "The primary reason for engaging the services of a security agency or security guards is to ensure a safe and respectful space. "In hotels and bars, their job is to curtail disruptive conduct, respectfully stop uninvited people, and remove unruly people while respecting their boundaries and without compromising their dignity," the Court said. "They are hired because they are trained in rapid emergency responses, skilled at being hyper-vigilant in monitoring, controlling, and reporting any nuisance, threat, or criminal activity to the police or concerned authorities, and de-escalating potentially volatile situations to ascertain the well-being, safety, and security of those around," it observed. "However, when these same employers or employees become miscreants, assuming themselves to be extra-constitutional authorities and taking pride in exuberant arrogance, using threats, intimidation, physical coercion, and brute force as weapons, it becomes a cause of grave concern for the society," the Court noted. The Bench also said that in this part of the country, using the term 'bouncers' for workers in security agencies is intended to serve a dual purpose: to invoke fear, anxiety, and terror in the mind of the public and to intimidate others. "This, in any civilised setup, is impermissible, even for the state, especially in a democratic setup, and it is demeaning in the sense that it reflexively strips off any empathetic or humanistic qualities found in a person, leaving behind a degraded, damaged, negative, and robotic connotation, akin to slaves working on the whims and commands of their masters," it observed. The Court also said that it reduces the respectable role of a trained security guard to that of an enforcer, who operates through confrontation and intimidation rather than respectful civil dialogue. Such agents or employees with their varied roles, titles, and descriptions including 'bouncers', are not above law or other human beings and are certainly not the enforcers of the law, it said. 'The concern is the passive endorsement of the term 'bouncer' by the State or the Executive, being oblivious as to what it has started to represent'. "It is beyond comprehension how the identity of a particular section of employees or workers can so restrictively be permitted by the state to be defined, named, or termed as a 'bouncer'," the Court said. The Judge also said that the role this Court has assigned to itself is to sensitise the Executive, and it is up to the State to take or not to take any steps to ensure that the term "bouncer" is not used by any recovery or security agents or their agencies for their employees so that these security guards or personnel associate their respective roles with respect, dignity and responsibility.
The Print
21-05-2025
- Politics
- The Print
Use of term ‘bouncer' intended to invoke fear, terror in public mind: HC
It also observed that the primary reason for engaging the services of a security agency or security guards is to ensure a safe and respectful space, but when these employers or employees become 'miscreants', assuming themselves to be extra-constitutional authorities, using threats and brute force as weapons, it becomes a cause of grave concern for the society. Chandigarh, May 21 (PTI) Expressing concern over the use of the term 'bouncer' by private security agencies for their workers, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that it is intended to invoke 'fear, anxiety, and terror in the minds of the public', which is 'impermissible' in any civilised setup. During the hearing, a single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara observed that the paramount concern for the court was the use of the term 'bouncer' in the name of the security agency run by the petitioner. The bench referred to a 'disturbing trend', wherein a particular segment of employers and employees, under the guise of a simple job description 'bouncer', have started adopting a 'terrorising and bullying role'. It observed that they were becoming too comfortable donning an armour of hostility, aggression and subjecting the citizenry 'to indignity and humiliation at will, unafraid of any negative consequences, presuming themselves to have unfettered powers over the law'. The court said the state is also aware of how the term 'bouncer'' is being used by the security agencies to throw around their weight and exert their influence, but it chooses to remain 'unperturbed, unconcerned, and, therefore, insensitive towards such an issue'. The court also cited the definition of the term 'bouncer' found in dictionaries. 'According to Merriam-Webster, bouncer is one that bounces: such as (a) one employed to restrain or eject disorderly persons; (b) a bouncing ground ball. 'According to the Oxford Dictionary, a bouncer is defined as a person employed to eject disorderly persons from a public place, especially a bar or a nightclub. 'The Cambridge Dictionary describes a bouncer as someone whose job is to stand outside a bar, party, etc., and either stop people who cause trouble from coming in or force them to leave,' the court said. The objective of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005, is to provide for the regulation of private security agencies and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, it said. It would be relevant to refer to the definitions of 'private security agency' and 'private security guard' from the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, which does not refer to security guards as 'bouncers', the court said. It also said that security agencies have to employ security guards as per the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, and also according to the Punjab Private Security Agency Rules, 2007, in the state of Punjab. 'The primary reason for engaging the services of a security agency or security guards is to ensure a safe and respectful space. 'In hotels and bars, their job is to curtail disruptive conduct, respectfully stop uninvited people, and remove unruly people while respecting their boundaries and without compromising their dignity,' the court said. 'They are hired because they are trained in rapid emergency responses, skilled at being hyper-vigilant in monitoring, controlling, and reporting any nuisance, threat, or criminal activity to the police or concerned authorities, and de-escalating potentially volatile situations to ascertain the well-being, safety, and security of those around,' it observed. 'However, when these same employers or employees become miscreants, assuming themselves to be extra-constitutional authorities and taking pride in exuberant arrogance, using threats, intimidation, physical coercion, and brute force as weapons, it becomes a cause of grave concern for the society,' the court noted. The bench also said that in this part of the country, using the term 'bouncers' for workers in security agencies is intended to serve a dual purpose — to invoke fear, anxiety and terror in the mind of the public and to intimidate others. 'This, in any civilised setup, is impermissible, even for the state, especially in a democratic setup, and it is demeaning in the sense that it reflexively strips off any empathetic or humanistic qualities found in a person, leaving behind a degraded, damaged, negative, and robotic connotation, akin to slaves working on the whims and commands of their masters,' it observed. The court also said that it reduces the respectable role of a trained security guard to that of an enforcer, who operates through confrontation and intimidation rather than respectful civil dialogue. Such agents or employees with their varied roles, titles, and descriptions including 'bouncers', are not above law or other human beings and are certainly not the enforcers of the law, it said. 'The concern is the passive endorsement of the term 'bouncer' by the state or the executive, being oblivious as to what it has started to represent. 'It is beyond comprehension how the identity of a particular section of employees or workers can so restrictively be permitted by the state to be defined, named, or termed as a 'bouncer',' the court said. The judge also said that the role this court has assigned to itself is to sensitise the executive, and it is up to the state to take or not to take any steps to ensure that the term 'bouncer' is not used by any recovery or security agents or their agencies for their employees so that these security guards or personnel associate their respective roles with respect, dignity and responsibility. PTI CHS ARI ARI This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.
