'Courts Are Also Public Places, But We Are Turning Them Into Fortresses' : Supreme Court Says Balanced Approach Needed For Security

The Supreme Court on Friday verbally observed that the courts cannot be turned into "fortresses" in the name of enhancing security. There should be a balance struck between the concept of open court system, which allows public to have access to court proceedings, and security concerns.

A bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta was hearing a batch of petitions seeking directions in respect of Special Security measures for the protection of judges, litigants, advocates and the persons involved in the justice delivery system of Court premises in all Indian courts.

“Please understand that the courts are public places. But today we are making the Court into a fortress", Justice Bhat said while adding that it is very difficult for an ordinary public member to come to the Supreme Court in view of the tight security measures.

"A normal citizen cannot walk into this Court. There are two sides to it. One is the open court system ..if someone wants to come to the court and observe how proceedings are going on, it is impossible .let us not make it that way to all the other Courts. Let us arrive at a solution which is balanced", Justice Bhat observed during the hearing.

The bench also observed that ‘one size fit all solution’ might not be effective in managing the issue of security. It was indicated that the areas, districts and States which require heightened security on priority be identified at the first instance.

The bench asked the Amicus Curiae, Mr. Sidharth Luthra and Counsels representing the petitioners to consider the feasibility of focusing on areas/districts/places/States where heightened security is a concern and suggest solutions in that regard.

With respect to cases of threat against judges, Justice Bhat suggested that the State Government might consider conducting a periodic review on the threat perception. It was also pointed out that the emphasis is being laid to figure out the areas which require heightened security because the resources of the State and the Centre would not be strained by an impulsive decision of the Court.

“We cannot strain the resources of all States and the Centre. There are sections of society who do not have any security, otherwise we would be diverting that. We have to see it very very carefully.”

While hearing the Counsel for the petitioners, Justice Bhat pointed out that apart from general security at the court premises, the security concerns of vulnerable areas should also be taken into consideration. He asked the Counsels to collect material on the same.

“Some judicial officers are also using normal transport. Not all judges require securities in peaceful areas.Where there is protection needed for the court complex having regard to the nature of the heightened problems in certain areas, let us identify”, Justice Bhat reckoned.

He added -

“Why assume that the State is not doing its duties. The focus should be on areas where there is a threat perception…You have to get the feedback from different areas, otherwise we will come up with a one size fits all situation.”

Asking the Counsels to provide a comprehensive list of incidents where lawyers and judges have been at the receiving end of an attack, Justice Bhat said, “We do not want rhetoric, give us the facts.”

The matter is directed to be listed for consideration after 6 weeks.

Senior Advocate Manoj Swarup appeared in the petition filed by Pradyuman Bisht seeking installation of CCTV cameras in all courts. Another petition filed by Karunakar Mahalik seeking a dedicated security force for courts and judges was also listed before the bench.

[Case Title: Karunakar Mahalik v. Union of India And Ors. WP(C) No. 1422/2019]

Click Here To Read/Download Order