Snooping Stalking of a women The father has high political connections, influence in corridors of power , long association and asks the saheeb for protection of the daughter. ,She is a major, educated an architect, It is not clear what protection she needs, and what is the assessment of threat perception, from whom ,and reasons thereof .No evaluation is done, no records, evaluation inquiry and the whole Govt machinery is geared for excessive surveillance of a private individual , merely on oral orders. Is the Govt a private, detective agency without responsibility and accountability at a huge public costs? It is a clear case of misuse of state apparatus based on the personal cult. One would appreciate, if it involved public emergency or public safety. It has violated all procedures and set a dangerous precedent. The purpose is entirely personal
She is snooped, stalked, minute by minute, day to day, following her outside the state, in hotels, cinema houses, airplane, taping her conversations etc. The father wants the matter to be closed, as his daughter was aware of the procedure and knowledgeable of it from day one, besides the family, her husband is not making any grievance of it .The daughter wants peace and to be left alone, At the behest of the daughter, the father is requesting the National Commission of women to drop any further inquiries. The letter of the father after the incident appears fait accompli, a justification of snooping and stalking. Has the father been coerced now to do so and an educated, married daughter to maintain silence, hiding behind the wisdom of father? It is argued that PSO would have accompanied her to do the needful. The taping is of her conversations and not from others, who appear and are perceived as a threat to her security. The Congress is being accused of intrusion in the private life of an individual, when the said individual has no grievance. The Govt. while being non-committal dismisses the authenticity of the released tapes, but the Home Minister then is loath to clarify or defend, through his silence .Surveillance is a routine process with high risk individuals, not necessarily of private non-descriptindividuals. The case of Indira Gandhi and Dawan had the movements of Jail Singh constantly monitored and is being quoted for justification The closing of the case is not a private matter, when the state is pursuing it, without any justification on mere request of the father. Has the Constitution authorised such private surveillance without reasons and assessment, FIR, etc. The excessive surveillance is too excessive by any standard? Will such a facility provided to any individual by phone and oral orders of the Executive? Such snooping, stalking, is an encroachment, infringement, intrusion of personal privacy. It thus borders on mockery, modesty, dignity, honour of women to enjoy unfettered liberty by the State. It is no exceptional case that does not distinguish between security and snooping or stalking. The election time is fodder for the parties to rake up dead issues for political mileage and to show each other in bad light. One does not understand what threat she was facing, from whom, reasons and since when and whether on oral orders alone such a massive surveillance was undertaken without rigorous assessment ,as the procedure demands, What were the findings that justified this most unusual procedure Nelson Lopes Chinchinim
