NK. Dey, proprietor of the Calcutta-based ZED Securities, is apprehensive. He employs 65 people who work as private guards in offices, factories and buildings in the city. His company has been operating for five years and with reasonable success. But come March 2007, he will have to apply for a licence and, as part of the process, show that he is investing a significant amount in training his employees. This is in accordance with the Private Security Agencies Central Model Rules framed by the central government in April 2006.

Says Dey, “ZED is a small company. Youths come to me for employment from far-flung areas. I do not invest much in training them since I cannot afford it. Training is for the big boys.”

However, Diwan Rahul Nanda, chairman of the Rs 100 crore Tops Grup India, is jubilant. According to him, the new rules will finally separate the men from the boys. “Security is not about supplying labour. It is about protecting lives. The issuing of licences will ensure some semblance of professionalism in the sector where there are lots of fly-by-night operators,” says Nanda.

S.C. Das, proprietor of the National Security Agency in Calcutta, feels that the checks licensing brings must be followed by security agencies, as they will help them to carry out their function more efficiently. Sunil Kumar, senior advocate of the Supreme Court, says that a regulated private security industry will add to the confidence of the client who is seeking private protection.

Most security agencies are in favour of the regulations but they are upset about the way they were passed. Says Kunwar Vikram Singh, president, Central Association of Private Security Agencies of India (CAPSI), “We are surprised that the government chose to pass the regulations without any inputs from us.” According to Sunil Kumar, while the intention of the government is worth appreciating, as far as the regulations are concerned, the executive has slightly exceeded itself by assuming judicial powers.

Clause 3 of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005, says that the state government will designate an officer akin to the rank of a joint secretary in the home department of the state, or an equivalent officer, to be the controlling authority of private security agencies in that state. “The government has not been clear as to who the authority will be. Such authority is usually delegated to the law enforcement agencies. But we are not in favour of that,” says a visibly displeased Singh. Kumar adds that the legal standing of the controlling authority is questionable. “A private security agency and its client are like two private individuals who are bound by a contract. In case of a breach of contract, the matter should be decided by the courts. The controlling authority has no power to decide the failure of a contract in such cases,” says Kumar.

Then again, Clause 5 of the Rules specify that training for security guards should be for a minimum period of 100 hours of classroom instruction and 60 hours of field training, spread over at least 20 working days. But as Dey of ZED Securities states, “A long drawn training is possible for big companies. It will be difficult for small firms to match these training levels.”

Security agencies also have a problem with Clause 13, Section k (iv), of the Act which states that the licence of a security agency will be cancelled if the guards provided by it are found to be involved in committing crimes. In August 2006, one of the guards posted outside actor Shah Rukh Khan’s bungalow shot the other one in a fit of rage. Says Nanda, whose agency employed these guards, “If a sepoy or a jawan commits a crime, is the police commissioner or the army general ever dismissed? Why should the agency bear the brunt of the aberration of one guy?” asks Nanda.

The model rules also insist that the owner of a private security agency must be himself adept at security training. Many of the agencies are owned by people who have no security background and they find this clause objectionable. Singh feels that if people with no experience of piloting aeroplanes can manage airline companies, it is unreasonable to expect a security agency to be run by qualified security professionals. This will kill the spirit of entrepreneurship, he contends.

The private security industry in India is a sunrise industry. More than 15,000 private security agencies are estimated to operate in the country. It has become customary to see a uniformed guard at almost all places — from schools to office establishments to malls. “The private security industry in India is estimated to be worth Rs 21,000 crore and is growing at the rate of 21 per cent a year. We are one of the largest employers, with over 50 lakh people employed as security guards in this industry,” says Singh. R.K. Sinha of SIS India, a private security agency, adds that since security threats show no signs of abating, this has only heightened the role of private security in recent times. Since this is a democratic country, CAPSI will certainly press for an amendment, he says. As Singh remarks, “Let there be a win-win situation for all.”