UNION OF INDIAversusRAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS.

                        [2016] 8 S.C.R. 705


                        UNION OF INDIA                                  A
                                 v.
              RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 717 of2006)
                       DECEMBER 14, 2016                                B

   [T. S. THAKUR, CJI, DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
               L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.]
       Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Jurisdiction under - In
public interest - Invoked suo moto by the High Court - On the basis     C
of a news report with regard to a breach of security at Sanganer
Airport - Thereafter by a Circular dated 1.5.2002 issued by Bureau
of Civil Aviation Security, Union Government exempted certain
categories of "VVIPs/V!Ps" from pre-embarkation security checks
at civil airports in the country - Registrar General of the High
Court addressed a communication to the Union Government                 D
requesting to exempt the Chief Justice of the High Court from pre-
embarkation security checks - Subsequently, the Chief Justices of
the High Courts were also included in the list of exempted
persons - The High Court by the impugned order directed the Union
Government to include the Chief Justices and the Judges of the          E
High Courts in the list of persons exempted from pre-embarkation
security checks by amending circular dated 1.5.2002 - The High
Court also formulated certain suggestions for framing a National
Security Policy - On appeal, held: The High Court, by invoking its
iurisdiction u/Art. 226 suo moto and by issuing the directions, has
transgressed the wise and self-imposed restraii1ts on the power of      F
iudicial review - The High Court by formulating suggestions for
framing National Security Policy travelled far beyond the legitimate
domain of Judicial Review - Judicial Review is concerned with the
legality of executive action and court can interfere only where there
is breach of law or a violation of the Constitution - Matters of        G
security ought to be determined by the authorities of the
Government - Formulation of security policy is based on information
and inputs which are not available to the court - Court is not an
expert in such matters - There was also no occasion for the High
Court to direct exclusion of the Chief Justices from security check
as the Union Government had already exempted the Chief Justices         H
                                  705
706            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A     fiwn sec}lrity check - Moreover, the cause for which suo moto writ
      petition was registered, found no place in the ultimate directions -
      Judicial Review - Judicial Discipline/Restraint.
            Pursuant to a report in a newspaper regarding breach at security
      at Sanganer Airport, Jaipur, Rajasthan High Court took suo moto
B     cognizance of the report and a public interest petition was registered.
             During pendency of the petition, by a Circular dated 1.5.2002
      issued by Bureau of Civil Aviation Security exempted certain categories
      of VVIPsNIPs from pre-embarkation security checks at civil airports
      in the country. Thereupon Registrar General of the Rajasthan High
c     Court requested the Ministry concerned to exempt the Chief Justice of
      the High Court from pre-embarkation security checks. The Ministry
      declined to accede to the request. However, subsequently the Chief
      Justices of the High Courts were also included in the list of exempted
      persons.

0            Thereafter, the High Cowi disposed of the petition directing
      inclusion of the Chief Justices and Judges of High Court in the list of
      persons exempted from pre-embarkation security checks. The High
      Court also formulated certain suggestions for formulating a National
      Security Pol icy and further directed the Government to consider it. Hence
      the present appeal.
 E
             In the Transfer Petition (wherein transfer of Special Appeal before
      High Court was sought) also High Court while issuing notice to Bureau
      of Civil Aviation Security, made certain observations which were unrelated
      to the issue involved.
           Allowing Civil Appeal No. 717 of 2016 and disposing of
 F
      Transfer Petition (C) No. 75 of 2012, the Court
            HELD: Civil Appeal No. 717 of 2016:
         1.1 The High Court has transgressed the 'wise and self-
  imposed' restraints on the power of judicial review by entertaining
G the writ petition and issuing directions. The cause for invoking
  its jurisdiction suo moto was a news report in regard to a breach
  of security at Sanganer airport. Matters of security ought to be
  determined by authorities of the Government vested with the
  duty and obligation to do so. Gathering of intelligence information,
  formulation of policies of security, deciding on steps to be taken
H
       UNION OF INDIA v. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT                         707



to meet threats originating both internally and externally are A
matters on which courts singularly lack expertise. The breach of
security at Sanganer airport undoubtedly was an issue of serious
concern and would have been carefully investigated both in terms
of prosecuting the offender and by revisiting the reasons for and
implications of a security lapse of this nature. Thi!. exercise was B
for the authorities to carry out. It was not for the Court in the
exercise of its power of judicial review to suggest a policy which
it considered fit. [Para 9] [715-G-H; 716-A-B]
      1.2 The formulation of suggestions by the High Court for
framing a National Security Policy travelled far beyond the C
legitimate domain of judicial review. Formulation of such a policy
is based on information and inputs which are not available to the
court. The court is not an expert in such matters. Judicial review
is concerned with the legality of executive action and the court
can interfere only where there is a breach of law or a violation of
the Constitution. [Para 9] [716-C]                                  D
       1.3 A suo moto exercise of the nature embarked upon by
the High Court encroaches upon the domain of the executive. In
a democracy based on the rule of law, Government is accountable
to the legislature and, through it, to the people. The powers under
Article 226 are wide - wide enough to reach out to injustice           E
wherever it may originate. These powers have been construed
liberally and have been applied expansively where human rights
have been violated. But, the notion of injustice is relatable to
justice under the law. Justice should not be made to depend upon
the individual perception of a decision maker on where a balance
or solution should lie. Judges are expected to apply standards         F
which are objective and well defined by law and founded upon
constitutional principle. When they do so, judges walk the path
on a road well-travelled. When judicial creativity leads judges to
roads less travelled, in search of justice, they have yet to remain
firmly rooted in law and the Constitution. The distinction between     G
what lies within and what lies outside the power of judicial review
is necessary to preserve the sanctity of judicial power. Judicial
power is respected and adhered to in a system based on the rule
of law precisely for its nuanced and restrained exercise. If these
 restraints are not maintained, the court as an institution would
                                                                      H
708            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2016) 8 S.C.R.


A     invite a justifiable criticism of encroaching upon a terrain on which
      it singularly lacks expertise and which is entrusted for governance
      to the legislative and executive arms of Government. Judgments
      are enforced, above all, because of the belief which society and
      arms of governance of a democratic society hold in the sanctity
      of the judicial process. This sanctity is based on institutional
B
      prestige. Institutional authority is established over long years,
      by a steadfast commitment to a calibrated exercise of judicial
      power. Fear of consequences is one reason why citizens obey the
      law as well as judicial decisions. But there are far stronger reasons
      why they do so and the foundation for that must be carefully
c     preserved. That is the rationale for the principle that judicial
      review is confined to cases where there is a breach of law or of
      the Constitution. [Para 10) [716-D-H; 717-A-B)
         1.4 By the time that the Rajasthan High Court dealt with
   the case, the list of exemptions had been modified to include
D Chief Justices of High Courts in the list of persons exempted
   from pre-embarkation security. Even assuming that the
   intervention of the High Court in such a matter could have been
   invoked in the first place, the matter should have rested there.
   The cause for which the suo moto writ petition was registered
   was left behind and the episode which led to the invocation of the
E ·jurisdiction found no place in the ultimate directions. The direction
   to include judges of the High Court was unrelated to the very
   basis on which the jurisdiction under Article 226 was invoked.
   [Para 11) [717-C-D)
        1.5 Matters of security are not issues of prestige. They
F are not matters of 'status'. The Union Government has adopted
  the position that the issue as to whether pre-embarkation security
  exemptions should be granted does not depend only on the
  warrant of precedence. Among the factors which are borne in
  mind is that the person who is exempted from pre-embarkation
G security checks must, according to the Government, be secured
  by such a level of Government security on a 24x7 basis, which
  would virtually preclude the possibility of any prohibited or
  dangerous items being introduced on board an aircraft through
  his or her baggage. The security perception of the Union
  Government is that no exemption can be granted to a dignitary if
H
           UNION OF INDIA v. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT                            709


he/she is not under effective Government security coverage on A
a 24x7 basis. Heads of foreign missions in India are exempted
from pre-embarkation security checks on a reciprocal basis. The
view of the Union Government is based on a considered
assessment of security perceptions and ought not to have been
interfered with in the manner that the High Court did in the B
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226. [Para 11) [717-E-
G, H; 718-A]
         Transfer Petition (C) No. 75 of 2012:
      2. The record of the transfer petition indicates that the High
Court in the course of the Special Appeal has made certain                    c
observations while issuing a notice to the Director General of
the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security. Since the High Court has
made these observations in a matter which is unrelated to the
issue involved in the Special Appeal, the High Court shall keep
in mind the principles enunciated above. [Para 14] [718-D-E]
                                                                              D
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 717 of
2006.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 13.05.2005 of the High Court
ofRajasthan in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 518 of2000 (PIL).
                                 WITH                                         E
      T. P. (C) NO. 75 OF 2012.
      Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Ms. Madhvi Diwan, Subas C. Acharya,
Karan Seth, B. K. Prasad, Ansh Singh Luthra, Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Mrs.
Anil Katiyar, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ad vs. for the Appellant.
      S. S. Shamshery, AAG, Amit Sharma, Prateek Yadav, Ankit Raj,            F
Aruneshwar Gupta, Ms. Sushma Suri, Advs. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. I. A Division Bench of the
Rajasthan High Court by its judgment dated I 3 May 2005 issued a
direction to the Union Government and to its Secretaries in the Ministries    G
of Civil Aviation and Home Affairs "to include the ChiefJustices and the
judges of the High Court in the list of persons exempted from pre-
embarkation security checks" at airports and to amend a circular dated
I May 2002 1 of the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS). This
1
    Circular 12 of 2002                                                       H
 710             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 8 S.C.R.



 A     exercise was directed to be completed within thirty days. The High
       Court has directed that certain suggestions formulated by it for laying
       down a 'National Security Policy' should be considered by the Union
       government. The Union oflndia moved this Court under Article 136 of
       the Constitution. Leave has been granted on 20 January 2006, and the
       judgment of the High Court was stayed.
 B
              2. The case before the High Court arose from a report that was
       published in the daily edition of the Rajasthan Patrika on I 0 February
       2000, of a breach of security which took place at Sanganer Airport,
       Jaipur. On 8 February 2000, a person who was to board a flight to
       Mumbai was detained by airport security staff for carrying a revolver
 c     with six live cartridges. He possessed an arms license which had expired.
       After the passenger was apprehended he was sent to Sanganer police
       station where the revolver and live cartridges were seized and a First
       lnformation Report under the Arms Act was lodged. The passenger left
       the police station and after dodging the duty officer, boarded the aircraft
 D     destined for Mumbai. He was prosecuted for a violation of Sections 21
       and 13 of the Arms Act and was eventually convicted by the Civil Judge
       and Judicial Magistrate of the first class at Sanganer and sentenced to a
       fine of rupees one thousand. The accused paid the fine and, as the
       Additional Superintendent of Police, Immigration states before this Court,
       the revolver and live cartridges were released. So much for security.
. E
             3. The Rajasthan High Court took suo moto cognizance of the
       news report and a public interest petition was registered. During the
       course of the hearing, the Division Bench directed the Chief Security
       Officer of the airport, the Secretary to the Home Department and the
       Director General of Police to show cause how a security lapse had
  F    occurred.
              4. In pursuance of the provisions contained in Section 5(e) of the
       Aircraft Act, 1934 and Rule 8(a) of the Aircraft Rules, 1957, the Union
       government has made provisions for security screening in Chapter IV
       of the National Civil Aviation Security Programme (NCASP). Para 2
 G     deals with pre-embarkation security checks and divides them broadly
       into three categories :
              i) Manual search of hand baggage;
              ii) Screening of hand baggage through an X-ray baggage
                  inspection system; and
 H
       UNION OF INDIA v. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT                                 711
              [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

      iii) Frisking of passengers                                             A
Paragraph 4.24 contains exemptions and is in the following terms :
      "4.2.1 Ce1tain categories of VIPs/persons are exempted from
      frisking and searching, screening of their hand baggage if carried
      by themselves. The details of the List of such persons have been
      separately circulated to all concerned."                                B
      5. On 1 May 2002, a circular was issued by BCAS by which the
Union government exempted (as it describes) categories of "VVIPs/
VIPs" from pre-embarkation security checks at civil airports in the
country. Those exempted are the following:
                                                                               c
      1)     President
      2)     Vice-President
      3)     Prime Minister
      4)     Former Presidents
                                                                              D
      5)     Speaker of Lok Sabha
                               '
      6)     Chief Justice oflndia
      7)     Judges of Supreme Court
      8)     Union Ministers of Cabinet Rank                                   E
      9)     Governor of States.
      10)    Lt. Governors of Union territories
      11)    Chief Ministers of States and Union territories
      12)    Ambassadors of foreign countries, Charge D'Affairs and            F
             High Commissioners and their spouses          ·
      13)    Cabinet Secretary
      14)    Visiting foreign dignitaries of the same status as at SL. No.1
             to 3, 5, 6, 8 to 10 above.
                                                                               G
      15)    SPG Protectees"
All others are subjected to pre-embarkation security checks.
      6. On 16 September 2002, the Registrar General of the Rajasthan
High Court addressed a communication to the Secretary to the Union
government in the Ministry of Civil Aviation. While adverting to the above     H
712            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A     circular, the letter stated that the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High
      Court travels often by air between Jodhpur and Jaipur in connection
      with his official duties and was being inconvenienced by not being
      exempted from pre-embarkation security checks. The Registrar General
      drew attention to the warrant of precedence. The relevant part of the
      letter is extracted below :
B
            "it may be mentioned here that as per table of precedence (as
            published on 26'h July, 1979), the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the
            High Courts stand at serial No. 14 and Hon'ble Judges of the
            High Courts stand at serial at No. 20 within their respective
            jurisdiction and at serial No. 17 and 20 respectively outside their
c           respective jurisdiction. But they have not been exempted from
            pre-embarkation security checks at civil airports in the country.
            It is pertinent to mention here that Hon 'ble the Chief Justice is a
            Constitutional Authority and has often to travel by air from Jodhpur
            to Jaipur and vice versa in connection with the discharge of the
D           duties of His Lordship's office. As such non-inclusion ofHon'ble
            the Chief Justice in the list of VVIPs/VIPs who have been
            exempted from pre-embarkation security checks at civil airports
             in the country issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government
             oflndia, New Delhi will cause great inconvenience to His Lordship.
 E           I am, therefore, directed to request you kindly to amend the
             aforesaid circular accordingly and also to include Hon 'ble the Chief
             Justice ofRajasthan High Court in the list of persons exempting
             from pre-embarkation security checks in the civil airports in the
             Country".
 F    In reply, the Ministry of Civil Aviation by its letter dated 24 March 2003,
      declined to accede to the request after the matter was examined with
      BCAS. The list of exempted persons, it was stated, was kept to the
      bare minimum in view of "the ever increasing threat perception".
      Subsequently, on 26 March 2004, a security meeting was held in the
      Union government with the Security Categorisation Committee. In
 G    pursuance of this meeting a circular was issued by BCAS by which
      Chief Justices of High Courts were also included in the list of exempted
      persons. The list as contained in Circular 2 of2005 reads as follows:
             "I. President
              2. Vice-President
 H
       UNION OF INDIA v. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT                                713
              [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

       3. Prime Minister                                                     A
       4. Former Presidents
       5. Speaker of Lok Sabha
       6. Chief Justice oflndia
       7. Judges of Supreme Court                                            B
       8. Union Ministers of Cabinet Rank
       9. Governors of States
      I 0. Chief Ministers of States
      11. Chief Justices of High Courts
                                                                             c
      12. Lt. Governors of Union territories
       13. ChiefMinisters of Union territories
       14. Ambassadors of foreign countries, Charge        D' Affairs and
           High Commissioners and their spouses                               D
       15. Cabinet Secretary
       16. Visiting foreign dignitaries of the same status as at SL. No. I
           to 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 above.
       15. SPG Protectees"                                                    E
On 10 August 2005, Circular 32 of 2005 was issued by BCAS in
supersession of an earlier circular by which the following were exempted
from pre-embarkation security checks
      "I. President
                                                                              F
       2. Vice-President
       3. Prime Minister
       4. Former Presidents
       5. Speaker of Lok Sabha
                                                                              G
       6. Chief Justice oflndia
       7. Judges of Supreme Court
       8. Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha

                                                                              H
714            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A           9. Union Ministers of Cabinet Rank
            I0. Deputy Chairman Rajya Sabha and Deputy Speaker Lok Sabha
            11. Governor of States.
            12. Chief Ministers of States
B           13. Chief Justices of the High Courts
            14. Lt. Governors of Union territories
            15. Chief Ministers ofUnion Territories
            16. Ambassadors of foreign countries, Charge D' Affairs and High
 C              Commissioners and their spouses
            17. Cabinet Secretary
            I 8. Visiting foreign dignitaries of the same status as at SL. No. I
                 to 3, 5, 6, 9 and II above.
D           19. His Holiness the Dalai Lama
            20. SPG Protectees
            21. Shri Robert Vadra, while travelling with SPG Protectgees.
      By the time that the High Court decided the petition, the Chief Justices
      of the High Courts had been exempted from pre-embarkation security
 E
      checks. Yet, in its judgment the High Court issued a direction to exempt
      Chief Justices and then, also issued a direction to exempt High Court
      judges as well :
      The High Court held that :
 F          "In not including the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court
            In the list of persons exempted from pre-embarkation. security
            checks, the Department of Civil Aviation and Home Affairs have
            failed to maintain the status of the Chief Justice and the Judges of
            the High Court". (emphasis supplied)
 G          7. The rationale which the High Court indicated was that:
             "Circular of exemption also makes the people believe that pre-
            boarding frisking of Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court
            is very necessary in view of ever increasing terrorist threat
            perception. If the Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court
 H          are not subjected to pre-boarding frisking, national security may
       UNION OF INDIA v. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT                                715
              [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

      be in danger. The Department of Civil Aviation and Home Affairs        A
      have evidently failed to realise the distinction between the
      Constitutional and Statutory functionaries and thus violated the
      directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.N. Seshan
      Vs. Union oflndia (Supra)".
The High Court indicated that in view of the threat perception all VV!Ps/    B
VIPs should submit themselves to pre-embarkation security checks
"without exhibiting their egos" but if certain persons amongst them were
to be exempted then all constitutional functionaries should be treated at
par. The High Court also proceeded to formulate certain suggestions
for formulating a National Security Policy in the following terms :
                                                                             c
      (i)    There should be a clear cut and well thought out National
             Security Policy, instead of the piece-meal chasing of the
             ghosts of the past.
      (ii)   A mechanism to task the agencies in this regard with proper
             powers of oversight. It may be an individual or a committee     D
             directly under the Hon 'hie Prime Minister.
      (ii~   A single individual to oversee the functioning of the
             intelligence community, both unformed and ununifom1ed with
             authority to demand the cooperation of services of the State
             units, despite the colour of the State Governments.              E
      (iv)   Procedures to avoid duplication and waste ofresources".
The petition was thus disposed of directing - (i) the inclusion of the
ChiefJustices and judges of the High Court in the list of persons exempted
from pre-embarkation security checks; (ii) consideration of its
observations in regard to the formulation of a National Security Policy.      F
      8. The Union government is in appeal.
       9. The High Court has evidently transgressed the 'wise and self-
imposed' restraints (as they are described) on the power ofjudicial review
by entertaining the writ petition and issuing these directions. The cause
for invoking its jurisdiction suo moto was a news report in regard to a G
breach of security at Sanganer airport. Matters of security ought to be
determined by authorities of the government vested with the duty and
obligation to do so. Gathering of intelligence information, formulation of
polides of security, deciding on steps to be taken to meet threats
originating both internally and externally are matters on which courts H
716             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A     singularly lack expertise. The breach of security at Sanganer airport
      undoubtedly was an issue of serious concern and would have been
      carefully investigated both in terms of prosecuting the offender and by
      revisiting the reasons for and implications of a security lapse of this
      nature. Th is exercise was for the authorities to carry out. It was not for
      the Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review to suggest a
B
      policy which it considered fit. The formulation of suggestions by the
      High Court for framing a National Security Policy travelled far beyond
      the legitimate domain ofjudicial review. Formulation of such a policy is
      based on information and inputs which are not available to the court.
      The court is not an expert in such matters. Judicial review is concerned
c     with the legality of executive action and the court can interfere only
      where there is a breach oflaw or a violation of the Constitution.
          l 0. A suo moto exercise of the nature embarked upon by the High
  Court encroaches upon the domain of the executive. In a democracy
  based on the rule of law, government is accountable to the legislature
D and, through it, to the people. The powers under Article 226 are wide -
  wide enough to reach out to injustice wherever it may originate. These
  powers have been construed liberally and have been applied expansively
  where human rights have been violated. But, the notion of injustice is
  relatable to justice under the law. Justice should not be made to depend
  upon the individual perception of a decision maker on where a balance
E or solution should lie. Judges are expected to apply standards which are
  objective and well defined by law and founded upon constitutional
  principle. When they do so, judges walk the path on a road well-travelled.
  Whenjudicial creativity leads judges to roads less travelled, in search of
  justice, they have yet to remain finnly rooted in law and the Constitution.
F The distinction between what lies within and what lies outside the power
  ofjudicial review is necessary to preserve the sanctity ofjudicial power.
  Judicial power is respected and adhered to in a system based on the rule
  of law precisely for its nuanced and restrained exercise. If these
  restraints are not maintained the court as an institution would invite a
  justifiable criticism of encroaching upon a terrain on which it singularly
G lacks expertise and which is entrusted for governance to the legislative
  and executive arms of government. Judgments are enforced, above all,
  because of the belief which society and arms of governance of a
  democratic society hold in the sanctity of the judicial process. This sanctity
  is based on institutional prestige. Institutional authority is established over
H long years, by a steadfast commitment to a calibrated exercise ofjudicial
        UNION OF INDIA v. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT                                    717
               [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

power. Fear of consequences is one reason why citizens obey the law A
as well as judicial decisions. But there are far stronger reasons why
they do so and the foundation for that must be carefully preserved. That.
is the rationale for the principle that judicial review is confined to cases
where there is a breach of law or of the Constitution. The judgment of
the Rajasthan High Court is an example of a matter where the court B
should not have entered.
        11. By the time that the Rajasthan High Court dealt with the case,
the list of exemptions had been modified to include Chief Justices of
High Courts in the list of persons exempted from pre-embarkation security.
Even assuming that the intervention of the High Court in such a matter
could have been invoked in the first place (though we believe it should            C
not have been) the matter should have rested there. The cause for
which the suo moto writ petition was registered was left behind and the
episode which led to the invocation of the jurisdiction found no place in
the ultimate directions. The direction to include judges of the High Court
was unrelated to the very basis on which the jurisdiction under Article            D
226 was invoked. But that apart, there is a more fundamental reason
why the case should not have been entertained and directions of this
nature ought not to have been issued. Matters of security are not issues
 of prestige. They are not matters of 'status'. The Union government
has adopted the position that the issue as to whether pre-embarkation
 security exemptions should be granted does not depend only on the                 E
 warrant of precedence. Among the factors which are borne in mind is
that the person who is exempted from pre-embarkation security checks
 must, according to the government, be secured by such a level of
 government security on a 24x7 basis, which would virtually preclude the
 possibility of any prohibited or dangerous items being introduced on board        F
 an aircraft through his or her baggage. The security perception of the
 Union government is that no exemption can be granted to a dignitary if
 he/she is not under effective government security coverage on a 24x7
 basis. Heads of foreign missions in India are exempted from pre-
 embarkation security checks on a reciprocal basis. We are not called
 upon to decide upon the legality or justification for the inclusion of the        G
 name of any particular individual in the list of exempted persons in these
 proceedings. What we have said above is to emphasise that the view of
 the Union government is based on a considered assessment of security
 perceptions and ought not to have been interfered with in the manner
 that the High Court did in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226.    H
718             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016) 8 S.C.R.


A            12. We accordingly allow the Appeal and set aside the impugned
      judgment and order of the High Court dated 13 May 2005. The writ
      petition before the High Court shall accordingly stand dismissed. There
      shall be no orders as to costs.
      T.P.(C) No. 75 of2012
B            13. This transfer petition has been instituted by the Commissioner
      of Security (Civil Aviation), BCAS. The transfer petition has arisen in
      the context of an order dated 12 May 2011, passed by a Division Bench
      of the Allahabad High Court. The order of the High Court has been
      passed in a Special Appeal arising from a judgment and order of a learned
c     Single Judge dated 11 April 2007 in writ petition 1949/S/S/2000. It appears
      that the proceedings before the learned Single Judge arose out of a
      disciplinaiy proceeding.
          14. The record of the transfer petition indicates that the High
  Court in the course of the Special Appeal has made certain observations
D while issuing a notice to the Director General of the Bureau of Civil
  Aviation Security. Since the High Court has made these observations in
  a matter which is unrelated to the issue involved in the Special Appeal,
  we draw the attention of the High Court to the principles enunciated
  above while disposing of the Civil Appeal filed by the Union government
  against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. A copy of the above
E judgment shall be placed on the record of the Special Appeal filed before
  the High Court. In the event that the Special Appeal still remain on the
  file of the High Court, the High Court shall proceed to hear and dispose
  of the Special Appeal accordingly.
         15. We clarify that we have made no observations on the merits
 F of Special Appeal. The transfer petition is disposed of.
      Kalpana K. Tripathy                     Appeal allowed and T. P. disposed of.