Click the Play button to listen to article

The Jharkhand High Court has disposed of a suo motu PIL initiated after the 2022 attack and vandalism at the Latehar Civil Court, while observing that a comparable level of personal security should be ensured for judicial officers serving across all districts of the State.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar observed that there was no reason for the authorities to wait for another incident like the one at Latehar before taking measures for the safety of judicial officers.

The suo motu proceedings were initiated on October 11, 2022, a day after a serious incident at the Civil Court premises in Latehar. According to the Court, a large gathering of members of the Tana Bhagat community had forcibly entered the court complex, raised slogans, vandalised the premises and assaulted police personnel, bringing judicial proceedings to a complete halt.The situation had escalated to the extent that the then Principal District and Sessions Judge, Latehar, had to be locked inside a room to protect his life and liberty.

Taking suo motu cognisance, the High Court had expressed prima facie concern over the adequacy of security arrangements at civil courts across Jharkhand and directed the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police to place on record intelligence inputs, action taken reports and an assessment of the security provided at court premises and to judicial officers.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the Court passed several orders aimed at preventing similar incidents at the district level and ensuring that those responsible for the Latehar incident were identified and proceeded against in accordance with law. The State subsequently placed on record details of the measures taken. An affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police, Latehar, in August 2025 stated that charge sheets had been filed against 40 accused persons who were in custody, while investigation against the remaining accused was continuing.

The affidavit also detailed the security arrangements at the Latehar court complex, including deployment of armed personnel, a Quick Response Team in close proximity, barbed-wire fencing along the boundary wall, CCTV cameras at strategic locations and video-conferencing facilities for production of high-risk undertrials.

The Court found the existing security arrangements at the Latehar Civil Court adequate for the present. It was also satisfied with the personal security provided to judicial officers in the Latehar Judgeship, noting that each judicial officer had, at a minimum, been provided one bodyguard and one Home Guard. It added that an independent judiciary necessarily presupposes an environment in which judicial officers can discharge their constitutional and judicial functions without fear, intimidation or threats to their personal safety. The Bench observed that the incident had warranted immediate intervention as an attack of this nature struck at the independence of the judiciary, which is a basic feature of the constitutional scheme.

Against this backdrop, the Bench said a comparable level of personal security ought to be ensured for judicial officers across Jharkhand. The Court observed:

“…There is no reason to wait for a Latehar-type incident and only then initiate steps for protection and security measures. The safety and security of judicial officers, particularly those serving at the district level, cannot be viewed in isolation from the independence of the judiciary…”

Since the immediate concerns which prompted the suo motu PIL had been substantially addressed, the Court found that nothing further remained to be determined at this stage. Before closing the proceedings, however, it expected that the investigation and pending proceedings arising from the 2022 incident would be taken to their logical conclusion in accordance with law and that the security arrangements presently in place at district courts would be maintained on an ongoing basis.

The PIL was accordingly disposed of, with the interlocutory orders passed from time to time made absolute to the extent required.

Case Title: Court on its own Motion v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case Number: W.P. (PIL) No. 5044 of 2022

Appearance: For the State: Mr. Vibhor Mayank, A.C. to A.G.

Click Here To Read/Download Order




Tags: