Security Cover Politics: Why Z, Z+ Labels Confuse the Public

TL;DR: India's VIP security system has six tiers from X to SPG, but the public rarely understands what they mean, who decides them, or why they change. Recent events, including the withdrawal of Raghav Chadha's Z+ cover and the attack on Farooq Abdullah despite Z+ protection, expose how security labels are more political than most people realize.

What the Labels Actually Mean

When news anchors casually throw around "Z+ security" or "Y category protection," they rarely stop to explain what these categories involve. Here is the actual breakdown:

Category	Personnel	Provided By	Typical Protectees
SPG	~3,000 force; dedicated detail	Special Protection Group	PM and immediate family only
Z+	55 personnel, 10+ NSG commandos	CRPF/NSG/ITBP	Top politicians, ex-PMs, high-threat individuals
Z	22 personnel, 4-5 NSG commandos	Delhi Police/CRPF/ITBP	Senior politicians, judges, public figures
Y+	11 personnel + armed escort	State/central police	Mid-level threat targets
Y	11 personnel, 1-2 commandos	State police	Lower-profile public figures
X	4-5 armed police	State police	Lowest threat category

The SPG is in a league of its own. Created by the SPG Act of 1988 after the assassination of Indira Gandhi, it was once available to all former Prime Ministers and their families. A 2019 amendment restricted it exclusively to the sitting PM and immediate family, a move widely seen as targeting the Gandhi family, who were shifted to Z+ CRPF cover.

Who Decides, and On What Basis?

This is where things get opaque. The Intelligence Bureau (IB) conducts threat assessments and recommends a security category. The final call rests with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). State governments can also provide security from their own police forces.

In theory, threat perception drives everything. In practice, the process is neither transparent nor consistent. The IB's threat assessments are classified. There is no public audit of how categories are assigned. No one outside the system can verify whether a downgrade reflects genuine reduced risk or political calculation.

Consider the timeline of events in the Raghav Chadha case. He held Z+ security from the Punjab government. Then he fell out with AAP leadership and was removed as the party's deputy leader in the Rajya Sabha. Within days, the Punjab government withdrew his Z+ cover. Hours later, the Centre stepped in with Z category security in Delhi and Punjab, and Y category elsewhere.

AAP's response was telling. Spokesperson Priyanka Kakkar claimed that the Centre's quick intervention was proof of a "BJP-Chadha understanding," alleging that "there was a meeting of top-level BJP leaders with Raghav Chadha wherein it was decided that Raghav will be provided Z+ security." The Centre, in turn, cited an "existing threat perception."

Both things cannot be simultaneously true. Either the threat existed all along (in which case Punjab's withdrawal was politically motivated) or the threat materialized overnight (which strains credulity). Punjab's Congress MLAs cut through both narratives by demanding a white paper on how security cover gets allocated in the state. That demand, frankly, makes more sense than anything either side has said.

The Pattern: Security as Political Currency

The Chadha episode is not unique. Security cover in India has a long history of being wielded as a political tool.

Downgrades as punishment. When former Delhi CM Atishi's security was downgraded from Z to Y in April 2025, the MHA cited "reduced threat perception." The timing, coming after AAP lost Delhi, invited obvious questions about whether the assessment was security-driven or politics-driven.

Upgrades as signaling. When the Centre provides security to a leader at odds with their own party, it reads less like protection and more like a recruitment signal. The BJP has historically extended central security to opposition figures before they crossed the floor. Whether that correlation is causal or coincidental, the optics are hard to ignore.

Withdrawals after defections. TMC leader Mukul Roy's Z-category security was withdrawn after he returned to his party from the BJP. The MHA said his threat perception had changed. Critics said the threat only "changed" because his political loyalty did.

Mass withdrawal as housekeeping. In one sweep, the MHA dropped security cover for 19 former union ministers, while retaining protection for Smriti Irani. The Delhi Police audit had flagged that these individuals continued receiving cover despite their tenures ending. Reasonable enough on paper, until you notice that the one BJP leader retained was the one exception.

When Security Fails: The Farooq Abdullah Attack

In March 2026, an assassination attempt on former J&K Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah exposed serious security lapses despite him having Z+ protection, the highest category below SPG. The incident triggered an MHA-ordered review of VIP security protocols, with the NSG directed to audit all Z+ protectees.

The attack laid bare a fundamental problem. Categories are treated as status symbols in political discourse, but what they actually deliver on the ground can be very different from what the label implies. A Z+ tag means 55 personnel on paper. It does not guarantee competent deployment, proper advance security, or adequate threat intelligence.

Weeks after the attack, J&K CM Omar Abdullah flagged that security had been withdrawn from the National Conference headquarters in Srinagar. The Assembly Speaker urged authorities to either declare J&K "risk-free" or ensure security for all. That is the kind of binary that exposes how hollow the system's logic can be.

The Cost Nobody Talks About

VIP security in India costs taxpayers enormously, and the public gets almost no say in it.

Delhi Police told the Supreme Court that Rs 341.24 crore was the annual non-plan budget for VVIP security in the capital alone. Separately, VIP security costs Delhi about Rs 20 crore a month, with 436 individuals receiving cover. The Supreme Court itself has criticized VIPs for misusing security as "a symbol of power" rather than actual protection.

The Bombay High Court went further, demanding that the Maharashtra government justify spending taxpayer money on police protection for politicians. Courts have periodically pushed back, but the system has not fundamentally changed.

The real cost is not just financial. Every officer deployed for VIP protection is one fewer officer available for civilian policing. In a country that already has one of the lowest police-to-population ratios in the world, that trade-off matters more than any debate about whether a particular MP deserves Z or Z+.

How Media Turns Protection Into Drama

The media treatment of security categories is almost uniformly shallow. Here is what typically happens:

Headline formula: "[Leader] gets/loses Z+ security." Full stop. No explanation of what that means, who decided, or why.

Missing context: Reports rarely mention the IB's threat assessment process, the cost to taxpayers, or historical patterns of political manipulation. The Chadha story became a BJP-vs-AAP narrative within hours. The systemic questions got buried.

Status framing: Security categories are treated like honors or insults. "Getting Z+" sounds like a promotion. "Losing Z+" sounds like a demotion. This framing plays directly into the political theatrics both sides want.

Selective outrage: The same outlets that demand accountability when an opposition leader's security is downgraded go quiet when a ruling party leader's security is questioned, and vice versa. The coverage tracks political alignment, not public interest.

Compare this with how the same media covers, say, a company's credit rating change. Analysts explain what the rating means, what drove the change, what the implications are. Security category changes deserve the same depth. They almost never get it.

What Would Actually Fix This?

Transparency would be a start. The Congress MLAs in Punjab who demanded a white paper on security allocation had the right instinct. If the threat assessment process were even partially transparent, explaining categories of threats considered, review timelines, and criteria for changes, the political weaponization would become harder.

Annual public disclosure of VIP security costs, broken down by category and state, would also help. Taxpayers funding this system deserve to know what they are paying for.

An independent review mechanism, perhaps through a parliamentary committee with access to IB assessments, could add accountability without compromising operational security. Right now, the MHA is both the decision-maker and the only auditor.

None of this is likely to happen soon. Security cover is too useful as political currency for any party in power to voluntarily give it up.

The Bottom Line

The next time a headline screams about a politician gaining or losing Z+ security, ask three questions: Who decided? Based on what evidence? And who benefits from the timing?

If the answers are unclear, that is not a gap in the reporting. That is the story.

---

Sources: - NDTV: Centre Gives Z Security to Raghav Chadha After AAP Withdraws - India Today: Why BJP-led Centre Provided Z Security to AAP's Raghav Chadha - PGurus: Punjab Withdraws Z+ Security of Raghav Chadha - Times of India: Chadha Security Row 'Political Drama' - Daily Pioneer: Assassination Bid on Farooq Abdullah - NDTV: MHA to Review VIP Security Measures - The Tribune: J&K CM Omar Flags NC Security Withdrawal - Indian Express: MHA Drops Security for 19 Former Ministers - Supreme Court on VIP Security Misuse - New Indian Express: MHA Downgrades Atishi's Security - The Hindu: Mukul Roy's Security Withdrawn