The submission was made by MHA during hearing of Payal's plea to retain the bungalow in Lutyens zone, where she is residing now with her two sons, on the ground of having 'Z' and 'Z plus' security.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) told Justice Indermeet Kaur that the government accommodation, on security grounds, is given only to SPG protectees.
The government's response came in the backdrop of the plea by the woman, who has sought that she and her children be not evicted from 7, Akbar Road (type VIII) bungalow here or an alternative accommodation be provided in view of their security status and threat to their lives.
The Centre, through its counsel Anurag Ahluwalia, also said there is "no input with it indicating any specific or imminent threat to Payal Abdullah".
It also said that the police will manage the accommodation of the personnel in their security detail.
One reason given by Payal for retaining her current accommodation was that she and her sons' security detail comprises of 94 personnel.
The bench was also told that three central government protectees -- KPS Gill, ex-DGP Punjab, M S Bitta, chairman of All-India Anti-Terrorist Front and Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy, other than SPG protectess, are residing in government accomodation on security grounds in view of high-level threat faced by them.
(Reopens LGD32)
The court had on July 12 given protection to them against being evicted from their government accomodation.
The Jammu and Kashmir government has opposed Payal Abdullah's stay in the bungalow, saying it was faced with an extremely piquant situation as it does not have an appropriate accommodation to house the Chief Minister in Delhi befitting her position and security imperatives.
In their plea, Payal Abdullah and her children have claimed that the Centre, through a letter dated September 9, 2015, allotted the 7, Akbar Road bungalow to the state of Jammu and Kashmir as the Chief Minister's residence with retrospective effect from August 11, 2009, without following the due process of law which was thus illegal.
Their petition, filed through advocate Amit Khemka, has claimed that they moved the high court as Omar Abdullah in his response to the estate officer's show cause notice had said he was no longer in occupation of the premises and, hence the authority was free to take whatever steps necessary to take over the premises.
The petitioners, including the couple's two children, have sought parity with Priyanka Gandhi, Subramanian Swamy and several others who have been granted government accommodation on security grounds.
As per the eviction order, the petitioners were given 15 days to vacate the premises.
Payal, in her plea, has said she has a flat in the city, but it would be "totally insufficient for making elaborate security arrangements for their protection" as there were other flats in the same building.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
