New Delhi, March 14: Delhi police today rejected charges of 'snooping' on Rahul Gandhi as a misreading of a security drill, introduced by a Congress government in 1991 and conducted even on BJP leaders L.K. Advani and Amit Shah as recently as last week.

Two policemen had visited Rahul's 12 Tughlak Lane residence on Thursday to ask for details of his physical appearance, such as the colour of his eyes and hair, prompting Congress allegations of 'political espionage' on the party vice-president.

Rahul has been on a 'leave of absence' from politics and is expected to return by the end of this month.

Congress spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi targeted Prime Minister Narendra Modi personally, accusing him of replicating 'the Gujarat model of snooping on political opponents'. He demanded an apology from Modi and home minister Rajnath Singh.

But police commissioner B.S. Bassi told reporters it was 'a routine exercise to update records of vulnerable personalities' and had nothing to do with the Prime Minister's Office or the Union home ministry. 'There was no political pressure,' he said.

Bassi said the drill is carried out twice a year on all VIPs - from the Prime Minister and MPs to celebrities - as well as citizens who seek police protection and some social groups like Kashmiris living in Delhi.

Police sources explained the idea was that the local police should be able to identify the VIP, protectee or vulnerable person if there's a terror attack or some kind of disturbance at their homes, offices or neighbourhood.

'Everyone knows what Rahul Gandhi looks like but there are many VIPs and commoners whose faces are not well known; that's why the survey is important,' an officer said on condition of anonymity.

Asked why the drill was conducted even on a Special Protection Group (SPG) protectee like Rahul, he said the routine may not make sense to everyone but rules were rules.

'Our team also visited the houses of other VIPs including L.K. Advani, Amit Shah, Veerappa Moily and (Samajwadi MP) Naresh Agrawal for similar information last week,' Bassi said.

'Our policemen didn't go to Rahul Gandhi's residence with any mala fide motive. The two policemen left the pro forma with staff at the residence,' he said.

Bassi was referring to a form that asks a person's name and those of their parents, their skin and eye colour, height, shoe size, details of family members, places they visit and the usual number of guests at their home, among other things.

Talkative cops

Sources said the routine, carried out under Congress governments too, had never before caused controversy because it was done unobtrusively. The police simply left the form with the VIP's home or office staff, who filled it in and returned it later.

Sometimes the cops didn't even come visiting - they just handed the forms over to party staff somewhere.

However, the latest visit created ripples because assistant sub-inspector Shamsher Singh and the constable accompanying him started questioning the SPG personnel at Rahul's home about his eye and hair colour, arousing suspicion, sources said.

'They were stopped and accosted by the SPG staff, and there was some pushing and shoving. Then they left the pro forma with the SPG, asking it be filled in and returned later,' a senior officer said.

After the controversy broke, a police team led by additional deputy commissioner Jatin Narwal visited Rahul's residence today to make enquiries and check CCTV footage.

Singhvi threatened to raise the issue in Parliament. 'India is a democracy and not a police state; this is a larger issue of national importance,' he said.

However, the Congress's official reaction surprised some party seniors, who said the best response would have been to laugh the matter off.

The controversy bears similarities with incidents of March 1991 when, during the budget session, the Congress brought down Chandra Shekhar's minority government at the Centre alleging Rajiv Gandhi was being spied on by two police constables posted outside his home.

Rajiv was assassinated during the election campaign that followed. Months later, under P.V. Narasimha Rao's rule, the security drill was introduced on the ground of an increased threat perception for VIPs.

The drill may have been introduced in 1991 but the pro forma, with its questions about eye and skin colour, seems to have existed for decades before that.

'Some of the questions in the pro forma might look irrelevant today, but in the 1960s and 1970s, when there was no TV and no (easily communicable) photographs, people were identified by their physical description,' he said.

'I agree that our pro forma has turned old. We'll change it and accommodate things that are relevant today,' Bassi said.