The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that it cannot allow “one-sided inquiries” into the lapse in the Prime Minister’s security during his recent Punjab trip and will much rather have a “judicially trained independent mind duly assisted by officers well acquainted with security considerations” to probe it.

“…we are of the considered opinion that these questions cannot be left to be resolved through one-sided inquiries. We therefore deem it appropriate to appoint an inquiry committee,” a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said, naming former SC judge Indu Malhotra to head the probe.

The court asked the probe team to submit a report at the earliest. All inquiries ordered by the central and state governments shall be kept in abeyance till then, it said. The team will examine the causes for the security breach, find out those who were responsible for it and to what extent.

It will suggest remedial measures necessary for the security of the PM and other protectees and recommend ways to ensure the safety and security of other constitutional functionaries, the court said.

The Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, who had seized the records relating to the incident as per earlier court orders, will be a member-cum-coordinator of the team.

The director-general or his nominee not below the rank of inspector general at the National Investigation Agency, as well as the police chief of Chandigarh and Punjab’s additional director general of police (security) will be the other members.

They would be best placed to effectively visit all issues and submit a comprehensive report to the court, said the bench, which also included Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli.

The court noted that the Blue Book on the PM’s security contained an unambiguous and detailed procedure to be observed by state authorities and the SPG to ensure the full safety and security of the PM while he is touring a state.

“The additional object is to avoid any human error, negligence or any wilful omission or commission which may hamper and/or expose the safety and security of the executive head of the nation while he is travelling in a particular state. Any lapse…can lead to devastating and serious consequences,” the court said.