No Security Breach, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra Violated Protocol, Says CRPF

Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra’s security detail today backed the Uttar Pradesh police’s claim that they attempted to stop her from visiting an arrested IPS officer’s house in Lucknow on Saturday because had she deviated from the schedule for the day. It also listed three ways in which the politician had violated protocol, resulting in the face-off with the police, and added that a senior Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) officer’s visit to her “place of stay” earlier that morning did not constitute a security breach. 

“On 28th December 2019, the only event indicated (in Priyanka Gandhi Vadra’s tour programme) was to visit the PCC office for attending PCC office for attending the Congress foundation function,” the CRPF, which provides Z+ security to Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, said in a release. It claimed that the Congress leader, however, violated security protocol by indulging in “unscheduled movements” without intimating the agency; travelling without the personal security officer in a civilian vehicle; and riding pillion on a two-wheeler.

A major controversy had erupted in Lucknow on Saturday, when Priyanka Gandhi Vadra alleged that the Uttar Pradesh police had tried to stop her from visiting the family of retired IPS officer SR Darapuri, who was arrested earlier that week for opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act. The Congress leader said that policewomen “grabbed her by the neck” and pushed her to the ground during the scuffle that broke out, and she finally reached her destination by hitching a ride on a two-wheeler and then walking the rest of the way.

The paramilitary force, in the release, also rejected an allegation made by Priyanka Gandhi Vadra’s office that a senior officer had threatened her security personnel and warned that their movements in Lucknow would be “restricted”. “On December 28, Hazratganj Circle Officer Abhay Mishra visited her place of stay around 0800 hours to enquire about the protectee’s detailed programme for the day,” it said, clarifying that there was “no breach of security” by the person concerned.