"Order Was Issued Considering Threat Perception": HC Expunges Adverse Remarks Against Punjab Police After Man Snatched Gun From Judge's PSO

The Punjab & Haryana High Court expunged remarks made on Punjab Police that “there is definitely lapse of security” clarifying that earlier directions to substitute Punjab Police with a neutral police force (UT Administration/State of Haryana) were issued “wholly and solely keeping in mind the threat perception perceived by the Judge and also this Court.”On September 22 a man pulled out the gun of the High Court Judge's Personal Security Officer (PSO) at Golden Temple and ran towards the entrance of the Golden Temple "with possible intent to harm the Judge". His advancement was thwarted by the PSO and in the scuffle that followed, the miscreant shot himself in the head.Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal said, “This Court may have gone a little overboard by concluding at this early stage that there is definitely lapse of security on the part of Punjab Police (vide order dated 24.09.2024), but this Court had no intention to cast any aspersions on reputation or integrity of police personnel of the State of Punjab.”The division bench clarified that the directions to substitute police personnel on September 27, deployed for the security of the Judge, from Punjab Police to a neutral police force (UT Administration/State of Haryana) “were issued wholly and solely keeping in mind the threat perception perceived by the learned Judge and also this Court.”The Punjab Government had filed an application seeking the recalling of the order whereby the High Court on September 27 had directed not to deploy Punjab Police for the security of a sitting High Court judge who exposed "large-scale lapses on the part of investigating agencies" of Punjab and whose security was compromised in a recent incident. In an order which was passed after the proceedings on October 1, the Court observed that it may not be out of place to mention the observations made by this Court in its order dated 24.09.2024. It said:“There is definitely lapse of security and therefore, ....”, in the order dated 27.09.2024 : “It is well known that large-scale lapses on the part of investigating agencies in the State of Punjab were exposed by various judicial orders passed by the learned Judge since last 12/24 months ......” and direction, in the same order dated 27.09.2024, for change of police personnel manning security of the learned Judge from Punjab Police to a neutral police force of UT Administration/State of Haryana, were made by this Court looking to emergent and grave situation, where this Court in its wisdom felt that if the PSO deputed with the learned Judge cannot take care of his fire-arm, secured to his person, then grave doubts arise as to the alertness and vigilance exercised by the said police personnel.“Perusing the compliance report filed by the Union Territory, Chandigarh, the Court noted that the security of the judge has been beefed up and the PSO of the Judge belonging to Punjab “has been retained on request made by the learned Judge.”Investigation On Incident In compliance with the previous order, the names of the Officers for conducting investigation in the FIRs lodged on security breach incidents were submitted by the UT Chandigarh and Haryana.The Court appointed Manisha Chaudhary, IPS, AIR/Administration, Haryana, Panchkula, stating that she “be entrusted the task of conducting and concluding investigation in a free, fair and impartial manner, as expeditiously as possible.”The Court directed Chaudhary to file a weekly compliance report in the Registry, reflecting the stage and progress in the investigation.While listing the matter for October 15, the Court directed U.T. Administration and the State of Haryana to submit a weekly threat perception report, so that the “Court can decide the future course of action in this case.”Appearance: Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate General, Punjab, with Mr. J.S. Gill, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, Mr. Anurag Chopra, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, and Mr. Saurav Khurana, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.Mr. S.P. Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Panel Counsel, UOI.Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Standing Counsel, UT Chandigarh, with Mr. J.S. Chandail, Addl. Standing Counsel, andMs. Eliza Gupta, Advocate, for Union Territory, Chandigarh.Mr. Pawan Girdhar, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. A.S. Cheema, Advocate, Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate,Ms. Kashish Sahni, Advocate, for Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chandigarh.Mr. Jasdev Singh, Acting President, Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chandigarh.Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERSClick here to read/download the order

"Order Was Issued Considering Threat Perception": HC Expunges Adverse Remarks Against Punjab Police After Man Snatched Gun From Judge's PSO

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags