Bombay HC questions Maha govt’s decision to reduce Zeeshan Siddique’s security

Mumbai, Dec 11 The Bombay High Court expressed shock over the Maharashtra government’s decision to dilute the security cover of former NCP MLA Zeeshan Siddique, son of murdered ex-Minister Baba Siddique, without a review meeting of a threat perception committee, a lawyer said on Thursday.

Orally observing that prima facie the decision to reduce security for Zeeshan appeared to be wrong, the Court asked the government, “On what basis was the security reduced? Who would be responsible if something happens to him?”

The court asked the state government to file details on the matter and fixed December 16 as the next date for hearing.

Earlier, the court fired a barrage of questions at the counsel representing the state government and sought a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the threat perception committee, which advised a reduction in Zeeshan’s security.

At this point, the court was told that no meeting of the committee took place before it was decided to dilute Zeeshan’s high-level Y-Category security.

A person with Y-Category security is typically guarded by eight to 11 commandos or policemen. However, Zeeshan is currently being offered security by just two police constables.

His father and former minister Baba Siddique was shot dead in Bandra East on October 12, 2024, by three assailants. At the time of the incident, he was being protected by two constables.

Zeeshan’s security was diluted soon after his mother, Shehzeen Siddique, moved to the High Court last month seeking a fresh investigation into the murder by a Special Investigation Team (SIT).

After the security was reduced, Zeeshan wrote a formal letter to the Mumbai Police Commissioner expressing serious concern over the safety of his family.

In the letter, he detailed the nature of threats faced by the family and other circumstances that, in his view, justify continued robust protection.

On Thursday, Shehzeen Siddique told the media persons that there is a threat to the life of her son. “I have already lost my husband and do not want to lose my son,” she said.

She said her husband had also sought extra security as he was fearing a threat to life; however, his request was not accepted.

--IANS

rch/dan

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor