When Napoleon and his pigs secretly modified some of the commandments and coined the tenet “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others” (in George Orwell’s allegorical novel Animal Farm), one can be reasonably certain that neither Napoleon nor his pals had any idea, let alone impression, of Indian VVIPs in the following millennium. In fact, one can be reasonably certain that the word VVIP had not entered the animals’ cosy farm at the time, and one can also be reasonably certain that the etymology of the word has an India connect, not unlike the unique farm’s creator.

And on Thursday, when a supreme court bench made the observation about that security culture being an “offensive symbol of our democracy”, one can be reasonably certain that justices GS Singhvi and HL Gokhale were not invoking the Orwellian satire-dictum. Far from it, in fact. What the bench did was shape in words a cloud of rage that hangs like the red flag before the eyes of any ‘ordinary’ Indian out on the streets on any ordinary day and time when one of these VVIPs are out, especially in the national capital.

“Everyone has a fundamental right to use a public road. Why should those cars with ‘red lights’ get precedence over others?” the bench asked. “Indiscriminate use of power in placing VIPs in a high-dignitary category results in abuse of power.”

With due apologies to the judges, that could well be the postmodern version of the Orwellian modern classic. And then the climax: “If streets are unsafe, then it has to be unsafe for the Secretary of the State also,” the court observed.

Close your eyes and imagine a courtroom in a Bollywood film: it would have elicited standing ovation and huge cheers from the assembled audience, with the judge inevitably using his gavel and seeking “order, order”.

But that precisely is what the apex court has done — called for a round of applause.

Yes, the street WAS unsafe for a certain 23-year-old paramedic on a Sunday night two months ago; and we all know what happened on December 16 in south Delhi. What the subsequent protests and spontaneous rallies in the heart of the capital did was bring it up afresh on the national conscience. And what the supreme court is now doing, while dealing with a petition on extraneous security accorded to VVIPs — some of whom have no business being part of that tribe — is give shape to those incoherent, but certainly not incomprehensible, voices.

“Positional security, or security due to threat perception, (has) become a symbol of power — if power is misused, it runs riot on ordinary citizens,” justices Singhvi and Gokhale observed.

Yes, it does run riot — as was seen on a Saturday afternoon at a farmhouse in Chhattarpur, in southwest Delhi. Incredibly enough, Ponty Chadha and brother Hardeep Singh Chadha, known for their liquor distribution empire and being close to people in power in Uttar Pradesh, regardless of their political hues, for their share of irregularities, and who shot each other dead (the case is still at trial stage at a Delhi city court), were given security by Punjab police, according to a petition filed before Punjab and Haryana high court by advocate HC Arora.

More interestingly, as if to prove the supreme court’s remarks about “positional security” being a “symbol of power”, former Uttarakhand minorities commission chairman Sukhdev Singh Namdhari, in judicial custody for his alleged role in the Chadha murders and since sacked by the Uttarakhand government, was also given police security by Uttarakhand. As if to make the story more Orwellian, that security officer, too, has been arrested for his alleged role in the same twin-murder.

Punjab police, which tops the list of state police forces providing cops for VIP security (5,811, despite reporting vacancy of around 12,000 police personnel, according to Bureau of Police Research and Development data), also provided security to candidates fighting Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee elections held last month. While it would be grossly unfair to single out these candidates, it is open for debate whether worthies like Ponty and his brother, Namdhari and religious-political leaders like the gurdwara management committee contestants deserve police protection.

Or would it take a petition or suo motu cognisance by the apex court to recognize this “offensive symbol of our democracy” in order to “treat our citizens on a par”, as the bench of justices Singhvi and Gokhale observed.