The Indian Premier League security fiasco had me wondering if it is within the Indian constitution for a government to refuse security to a legal Indian citizen or enterprise. I am no constitution expert, but I would expect providing security of life and property to it’s citizens to be one of the founding principles of the constitution. It is the primary job of the government and there’s no way it can shirk the responsibility. If a government says that it lacks the ability to provide security to its citizens and enterprise, is it legal for the government to continue in power?
By the logic that the national government has applied, even local police might now start refusing permission and security to smaller events. Would the police be justified if they call up organizers of film festivals, musicals and conferences and inform them that they cannot provide security and that the event must be canceled?
The government certainly has sent the wrong signals to the world & its own citizens by failing to provide security to a sports event. I had thought India was safe, but as the government doesn’t seem confident, maybe there’s cause for concern. The fact that the IPL dates coincided with the election dates, I think is a non-issue. As I see things, if a government wants to stay in power it has no choice but to provide security to any legal citizen or business in India.
To make matters worse, a bad precedent has now been set. I am certain this new found power to refuse security will be misused by many governments across India to stop events that they don’t support..
