Thursday, August 28, the court ordered the Secretary of the Interior of the Union to the petitioner a Personal Security Agent (PSO) of the central police force 24 hours a day.
A bench composed of judge Sangeeta Chandra and judge BR Singh adopted the ordinance on a brief request filed by the Karnataka BJP worker, S Vignesh Shishir.
In his provisional ordinance, the judiciary observed: “We are, at first glance, convinced that the case must be examined because the applicant continues his prosecution against a very powerful individual and faces constant threats and must appear before the investigation officer of the police station of Kotwali, district of Raebareli, in accordance with the opinion which was sent to him. »»
The petitioner argued that concerning his complaint filed in June 2024, an investigation was underway by the CBI and that he had appeared before the CBI in Delhi several times to provide proof of the British citizenship of Rahul Gandhi.
The petitioner said he had disclosed the details of a company M/S backops limited to the CBI formed on August 21, 2003 in the United Kingdom, whose Gandhi is a director and whose address is mentioned as 2, Frognal Way, London, United Kingdom NW3 6X.
The petitioner also indicated that he had filed objections to the director of the election by the partial parliamentary election of Wayanad, Kerala, against the candidacy of Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, but that his objections had not been taken into account.
Consequently, he is in the process of depositing a warranto prescription against Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, he argued.
The petitioner argued that since he had started prosecution against the two politicians, he received threats and pressure daily.
The petitioner said that he had also asked for the security of the central government and that he had written at the Prime Minister’s office, but that his requests had not been taken into account.
On behalf of the Center, the assistant general request for India, SB Pandey, argued that there is a program to protect witnesses and that, since the petitioner received “palpable” threats, the court can make an order for security coverage.
The case was published for October 9.
